HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/16/2000•
II Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11
11Chairperson: William Stockover IlPhone: 482-4895 (H) II
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 16, 2000, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Thad Pawlikowski, Diane Shannon, William Stockover, Martin Breth, Steve Remington, David
Ayraud
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andy Miscio
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board
Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken.
2. APROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the
Februaryl0, 2000 meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
3. APPEAL 2287: -- Approved
Address:
530 S. Whitcomb Street
Petitioner:
Dana Christensen, Owner
Zone:
NCB
Section:
4.8(D)(3)(d)
Back ound:
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 2
The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Myrtle Street from 15' to
10' in order to allow the construction of an outside stairwell for a new basement to be
constructed under an existing home. The existing basement walls are crumbling and the
owner would like to construct a stairwell as part of the new, replacement basement.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The south side of the home is the best location for a stairwell with regards to snow and ice
buildup and for maximizing sunlight into the basement. There also is little room on the north
side to allow the stairwell and the back yard is used for parking.
Staff Comments:
Gary Lopez presented slides relative to this Appeal. Slides were viewed of the property in all
directions. Lopez noted the home was located on a corner lot and the distance from the curb
on Myrtle Street was approximately 19 feet and that is this zoning district, a setback of 15
feet was required. Lopez presented slides showing the location of the proposed stairwell and
commented that in order to provide additional space in the basement, the house would be
raised. Slides were seen of the east property line, where the house would be moved towards
Whitcomb Street.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Dana Christensen, addressed the Board. Christensen stated that City Staff had
presented the basic facts in this appeal. Christensen commented that the house was built in
1903 using a stone foundation which was now crumbling and it is his desire to put in a new
basement foundation. Christensen mentioned that he has talked with Karen McWilliams
from the City Historic Preservation Department and she expressed that there would not be
any problem with the alteration from their standpoint.
Shannon questioned the Applicant why he was proposing to move the house towards
Whitcomb Street. Christensen replied that there was limited parking to the rear of the home
and only allows parking for one car. Christensen commented that he would like to eventually
build a 2 car garage in the rear of the property.
Remington asked Christensen why the proposed basement stairway width was 6 feet.
Christensen responded that wider than normal width was to allow for more sunlight and more
room alleviating congestion at the bottom of the stairway.
Shannon asked if the stairwell would be totally underground. Christensen replied that other
than railing outside the entrance, it would be underground and he has talked with Karen
McWilliams about trying to keep the railing similar to that which is on the front of the house.
Public Participation:
None.
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 3
Board Discussion:
Remington questioned Barnes if the Board were to approve this variance, would it open the
possibility of the basement with its external entrance being used as a duplex. Barnes replied
that the current zoning in that area does allow duplex uses and if the owner desired to make it
into a duplex, he would have to go through the permitting and review processes. Barnes
stated that the property would meet all the lot area and lot width requirements for a duplex,
but the Board could put a condition on the approval of this variance that if the home were
converted to a duplex, this variance approval would be re -reviewed by the Board, otherwise,
there would not be a need to apply for any variance for a duplex, given the fact that the
property meets the requirements.
Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2287 for the hardship created by a narrow lot.
Breth seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Shannon, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Ayraud
Nays: None
Appeal #2287 was approved.
4. APPEAL 2288: -- Approved
Address: 1020 Wabash Street
Petitioner: Rick Birdsall, representative of Adcon Signs, Contractor
Zone: MMN
Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(f)
Backeround:
The variance would allow three permanent housing project identification signs to be located
along Shields Street, instead of at entrance locations into the housing complex. Specifically,
the variance would allow three, 35 sq. ft. per face ground signs on Shields Street — one at the
northeast comer of shields & Wabash, one at the southeast corner of Shields & Arbor, and
one on Shields halfway between Arbor & Wabash. The signs would advertise the new four
Seasons Condominium Project. Without a variance, the developer would be allowed a sign
at each entrance — one at the entrance off Wabash, one on Century Drive, and one on Arbor.
The applicant is proposing that no signs be placed along Century & Arbor in exchange for
allowing signage on Shields.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The entrances into the complex are off of minor streets — Wabash, Arbor and Century. Signs
at these entrances do not provide adequate identification along Shields Street, which is the
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 4
major street adjacent to the development and which is the street upon which visitors, delivery
drivers, etc., will be driving on and looking for identification signs.
Staff Comments:
Barnes commented that in the past, the Board has approved variance requests for apartment
and condominium complexes allowing them to have a sign along the major street bordering
their project when the do not have a direct entrance into the project off of the major street.
Lopez presented slides relative to this Appeal. A slide of the site plan for the project was
viewed showing the proposed signs, noting the signs that would normally be allowed for this
project, noting that some of the signs allowed by Code were not going to be used. Lopez
presented slides showing neighboring commercial properties and the signage that was being
utilized by those businesses. Slides of the residential area to the west of the Four Seasons
project were viewed.
Barnes commented that the reason Staff included slides of the neighboring Poudre Valley
Plaza, which is a multi -tenant development and also in the Neighborhood Sign District and
was only allowed to have one sign on Shields Street. Barnes mentioned that Poudre Valley
Plaza was not restricted to putting their one sign only at an entrance.
Shannon asked Barnes if there was a size limitation on the allowed signs for Four Seasons
and if the three signs allowed could be in different locations.
Barnes replied that Four Seasons is allowed three signs, one at each entrance. Their
entrances are located at Arbor, Century and Wabash. Barnes stated that each one of those
signs is allowed to be a maximum of 35 square feet per side. The Applicant is proposing
three signs on Shields and one on Wabash for a total of four. Barnes noted that Poudre
Valley Plaza is allowed a total of four signs, however, their signs can be up to 40 square feet
per side.
Ayraud asked if a variance was obtained by Poudre Valley Plaza for their signage. Barnes
responded that Poudre Valley Plaza did not obtain a variance and met Code compliance with
the one they were allowed.
Sandy Lindell read two letters
Applicant Particination:
Public Participation:
Connie Werner, addressed the Board to oppose the variance request. Werner resides at 935
W. Oak St, the property due east of the Applicant's. Werner stated that had Long discussed
his plans with her, she feels she may not have had to appear here.
E
March 16, 2000
Page 5
Werner said she talked to neighbors to get their perspective on the project. She said that they
do want to see the neighborhood maintained and want to see it develop in a way that is
compatible, but at the same time, show a real care for it. Werner stated that she believes
Long had good intentions when starting this project.
Werner said questions still remained about the ordinance that was enacted in 1997. Werner
stated that although her addition was completed in 1991, she received a variance in 1990.
Since that time, the zoning codes have changed and with the current zoning, she would not
have needed to ask for a variance. Where she needed a setback of 12 feet for her garage
then, the requirement now is only for 5 feet. Werner expressed disdain that she could not
regain that extra square footage now for her back yard and the loss of her open space is
something that is one of her main concerns.
Werner commented that Long had not previously tried to contact her until late last night and
they could not connect, although she had been home the last 4 weeks since the last meeting
and he had time to come and discuss his plans with her. Werner did give Long credit for
altering the architectural design and addressing the concerns she had with the roof line of the
previous design and realizing with the many rental properties in the area, believes it is
beneficial to have Long upgrading his property.
Werner wanted to bring up the fact that Long is not undertaking a small addition, it will be
almost a 200% increase in his property. Werner noted that Long had made some reference to
her addition and the square footage of the loft area. She said her addition has a loft with a
pull down stair for some storage, but half of the space in the loft does not have a floor, so she
is not sure how her square footage is figured.
Werner commented that it was her understanding the intention of the NCL plan was to
protect the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single family dwellings.
She said she bought her home there because it was a developed area and thought she knew
what she was getting into. Werner remarked that the garage Long proposes is exactly the
same size as his upstairs addition, 672 sq. feet, she thinks this is pretty dramatic as he is not
replacing an existing structure. Werner stated that for her variance, she had an existing
structure of 150 sq. ft. that was replaced with her garage. Werner mentioned that the garage
Long is proposing is 24 ft. x 28 ft., which is beyond the size of a double car garage and the
majority of garages in the neighborhood that have a double car garage are 22 x 24. Werner
questioned what the hardship was for this appeal and that Long, being an assessor, should
have known after just recently purchasing the home, that there were new zoning rules for this
community. Werner said that the height of the Long project is extremely high, although she
does not have a problem with the height even if it means changing the front of the house.
Werner said she wanted it on record that the resident who owns and lives in the home at 935
W. Oak Street opposes the granting of this variance.
Ayraud asked Werner what the current side setbacks were on her property. Werner
responded that according to her plans, the setback is 4.9, assuming this was from a survey,
although according to her survey, it shows the north to south lot length as 137.5 feet and she
believes the standard is 140 feet. Werner did not know if Long property had another 2.5 foot
greater length than hers. According to Werner, her site plan has her house at 4.6 feet at one
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 6
end and 4.9 feet at the other end to the west. Werner stated that on the east side, the front of
her home is 11.2 feet from the neighbor and 11 feet at the back of the house. Regarding her
garage, Werner said she had asked for a variance to allow a 2 foot setback, which is the same
as what the existing shed that she replaced was set at. Werner noted that her lot has a slight
grade and when she went to put in the foundation for the garage it had to build up the front
due to the drainage issue and therefore appears somewhat higher.
Barnes wanted to clarify some points regarding Werner's garage. Barnes noted that a
variance was granted in 1990 to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet. The old
shed on the Werner property was at a 6" setback. A variance was also approved to reduce
the rear setback of the garage to the rear lot line along the alley from 15 feet to 8 feet and at
the time the variance was granted, the Code required a 15 foot rear setback. Since 1990, the
Code has been amended to require only a 5 foot setback along an alley in this neighborhood.
Pawlikowski asked Werner what the dimensions of her garage were. Werner responded that
it was 16' x 22' and at the highest point, her garage is 19 feet.
Ayraud wanted to clarify if the Applicant was asking for a variance for a 5 foot setback for
just the garage. Werner responded that it was on the west side of the Long home that was
asking for the 5 foot variance, a setback variance for the garage is not needed.
Board Discussion:
Ayraud asked Barnes for clarification on the setback requirement changes that took place in
1997. Barnes stated that in 1997, the City adopted a new Code and this zone, the NCL, was
one of five zones that were rolled over from the old Code to the new Code. The NCL
requirements are the same now as they were prior to 1997. What changed in 1996, with the
Eastside/Westside code changes, were the setback requirements along alleys and side yard
requirements based on the height of the building. Prior to 1996, it was a 5 foot side yard
setback for a single family regardless of the height. In 1996 the Code was changed to a 5
foot setback requirement for the first 18 feet of wall height and an additional 1 foot of
setback for every 2 feet of building wall height. Barnes noted that it is actually the proposed
dormer to the west that exceeds the 18 feet and requires the setback requirement being
greater than 5 feet. Barnes commented that another thing that changed in 1996 was how
floor area was calculated to arrive at the lot to floor area ratio. In 1996 it was changed to
include garages, prior to that, garages did not count as floor area, now garages are part of that
3:1 lot area/floor area calculation.
Stockover clarified that what the Board was really hearing was two issues; one for the
dormer setback and the other was a request for more floor space than what was allowed.
Barnes confirmed that was correct. Barnes stated that on a 5,600 square foot lot, 1,800
square foot of floor area was allowed for the 3:1 ratio. The proposal presented by Long has
the total floor area of the home at 1,844 square feet and the garage adding another 672 square
feet. Barnes commented that Long had alluded to the property at 938 W. Oak Street in his
comparable sheet submitted to the Board, the permit for that property had been issued in
1995, prior to the 3:1 ratio requirements. Barnes mentioned that if you were to subtract the
• 0
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 7
garage from that property, it would be in compliance and many of the others on the
comparable sheet pre -dated the time when the Code started counting garages.
Breth commented that the requirement now including garages in the floor area would hinder
those that have small lots. Barnes replied that people would need to request a variance from
the Board if their desired renovations put them over the required ratio, which would put the
Board in the position of deciding if what the applicant is asking for is reasonable.
Ayraud questioned Barnes if the reason garages were included in the floor to lot ratio was
because the City wanted to limit the amount of building that was on a property, or because
people were converting the buildings for other people to'live in. Barnes stated that prior to
1991 when the NCL district was adopted, there would not have been enough lot area under
that Code to allow a second home to be built on these lots, they are too small. Because the
character of the old neighborhoods included many detached buildings, when the floor area of
garages was not included, there was some concern for the potential of numerous outbuildings
or accessory buildings being placed on these small, narrow properties. It is only in the zones
that are in the old East/West neighborhoods that include the floor area of garages or detached
buildings.
Ayraud asked the Applicant if the construction of the garage was all to be on one floor. Long
stated that the garage is to be all on one floor and would probably have a steep pitch that
would be in character of the neighborhood, but would not have any living area above.
Ayraud asked Long when he revised his plans for this appeal why he decide to enlarge the
garage from the original square footage. Long replied that after reviewing some of the
properties in the neighborhood he realized that they had larger garages similar to the size he
really wanted. Long also desired to be able to have room for his lawnmower, bikes etc.
Remington asked Long why he did not have any dialog with Werner regarding the variance.
Long stated that he had talked to some of the neighbors, but had just been missing contact
with Werner and had also been taking care of a sick child that had occupied much of his
time. Long commented that he had a hard time getting the phone number of Werner, and
was not sure he was leaving a message at the right number.
Long addressed some of the concerns brought up by Werner, commenting that he believed
his garage would be approximately the same height as his neighbor to the west. Long stated
that in reference to his garage setbacks, he just wanted to be able to get his vehicles in back
as opposed to on the street.
Stockover addressed the issue of the dormers and the variance request on the 5 foot setback.
The consensus by the Board was that the 5 foot setback on the dormer to the west was not a
big concern. Stockover asked the Board to address the issue of the building square footage.
Breth stated that the changes in the architectural design for the home had taken care of many
of the issues there and he agreed an increase in the square footage of the garage was merited.
Breth commented that he would rather see items such as lawn mowers, bikes etc. stored out
of sight.
•
•
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 8
There was discussion by the Board regarding the garage size and that if this variance were to
be granted, the addition would be at the upper limit of those properties that have larger
buildings. The Board expressed some desire to have more information on the comparable
garage square footages noted on the list Long provided.
Ayraud expressed his concerns with the square footage issue. He stated that after receiving
information that the proposed garage is all on one floor and its size was being compared to
other garages that have loft or storage areas above them which were included in their square
footage, it gives a misleading perception of the actual square footages. Bames verified that
the loft areas are counted in the square footage of the detached garages. Bames referred
Werner's garage footprint, mentioning that it was somewhere around 300 square feet and
what is noted as some of the comparable buildings on Mr. Long's chart are about 705 square
feet. Not having specifics on how much area is loft on some of the comparable properties,
Barnes commented that it is difficult to determine on how much actual lot is being covered.
Stockover asked the Applicant if he could move the garage farther towards the back of the
property line, giving the backyard more open area. Long responded that he intentionally
wanted more space from the garage to the alley so he would have more room to drop people
off without having to open the garage door in back. Long noted that his garage would line up
with the garage of the property to the west.
Stockover asked Werner to address the Board on her concerns regarding the location of the
proposed garage. Werner commented that shading would occur on her property as a result of
the garage and there would be approximately 5 feet of wall that would hit her in the face
when she entered her backyard. Werner noted that a standard garage was 22' x 24' and the
majority of 2 car garages are those dimensions, so she does not have a problem with a garage
of that size.
Ayraud made a motion to approve the setback variance from 7' to 5' for Appeal #2279 due to
a narrow lot hardship. Breth seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Pawlikowski
Nays: Remington
The first portion of Appeal #2279 was approved.
Stockover commented that regarding the square footage issue, perhaps the Long property
was not large enough to accommodate the needs of a family this size. Stockover noted that
Long mentioned he had teenagers, which could possibly result in more than just two cars
being used by the family. Stockover agreed with an earlier comment regarding the
advantages of having room to put things away in a garage. Stockover stated he had hopes
the Applicant and his neighbors might come to a mutual agreement on the concerns of the
garage, but it did not appear that would be happening.
Long addressed the Board, commenting that he was open to making some adjustments with
the garage, possibly moving it back somewhat but still allowing for some parallel parking.
E
0
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 9
Werner commented that her worst fear by allowing 12 feet in the back of the garage was that
it would just become an additional parking area. Werner said it is not uncommon for people
to have a concrete pad for additional cars to park and she is not opposed to that.
There was some discussion on the allowable setbacks. Barnes stated that there was a 5 foot
minimum setback at the rear of the property and Werner's garage was setback at 8 feet, which
is the minimum amount required for parallel parking. Barnes commented that with a 12 foot
setback, it could possibly encourage people not to park parallel.
Ayraud commented that the Board had basically agreed to a size for the garage and it would
be meeting the setback requirements, now questions were arising on where on the lot the
garage could be built, even though they have already met the setback requirements.
Breth mentioned that he was in favor of having cars parked in the back of properties, getting
them off the street and helping with parking congestion on the streets. Werner brought up
the argument that having cars parked in an alley might impede access for emergency
vehicles.
Ayraud made a motion to approve the remainder of Appeal #2279 for the garage addition, at
the proposed location, but restricting the size to 22 feet x 24 feet. After computing the
calculations, this approval would result in a variance on the lot area to floor area ratio. The
motion was amended to include the condition that construction was to be done as per the
architectural design submitted. Pawlikowski seconded the motion.
There was some discussion by the Board that if the Applicant could possibly erect some
smaller storage sheds to accommodate garden equipment etc. Barnes mentioned that if
detached sheds are kept under 120 square feet and a height of no more than 8 feet, they were
not regulated. This could result in multiple storage sheds on the same site. There was some
discussion if the best option in this case would be to allow a larger garage that would have
ample storage, or to restrict the garage size and possibly have several small sheds to take care
of other storage needs. Werner was asked by the Board if given those options, which would
she rather view from her property. Werner stated that she would like to see a 22' x 24'
garage, setback to either the 5' or 8' rear setback line, but she would not have a problem with
a storage shed.
There was Board discussion about either moving the garage south 4 feet, or requiring that the
size reduction come from the north end of the garage, which would result in the same effect
as moving the garage 4 feet south. However, the Board had a problem with dictating location
and proceeded to vote on Ayraud's motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Breth, Pawlikowski
Nays: Stockover, Remington
Barnes summarized the decision of the Board, explaining that the variance for the lot
area/floor area calculation for Appeal #2279 was approved with the condition that the size of
0
0
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 10
the garage be no more than 22' x 24', resulting in a lot area to floor area ratio of 2.36 to 1 and
the setback on the west lot line to 5' was approved. The variances were also conditioned on
the architectural design of the building be as submitted.
Appeal 42279 was approved.
Barnes suggested that the Applicant work together with his neighbors to determine where the
4 feet created from downsizing the garage square footage be utilized.
5. APPEAL 2281: --Approved
Address:
121 Buckingham and 235 2"d Street
Petitioner:
Guadalupe, Helen and Yolanda Rodriguez, Owners
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3(D)(1)
Back round:
The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 sq. ft. to 4,050 sq. ft. for the
home at 121 Buckingham Street, and from 6,000 sq. ft. to 4,050 sq. ft. for the home at 235
2"d Street. The variance is requested in order to allow the existing 8,100 sq. ft. lot which
contains both homes to be split into two separate lots.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshin:
The Board was directed to refer to the letter submitted by the Applicant for the Petitioner's
Statement of Hardship. It was also noted that both of the homes have their own separate
utility services.
Staff Comments:
Barnes commented that regarding this Appeal, if the two homes were not already there, the
Board would normally not grant this type of variance due to the lack of hardship and the
precedent that would be set. However, this situation is somewhat unique, since the two
homes already exist and the creation of a new lot line to separate the properties is something
that should have no impact on the neighborhood.
Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. Slides were viewed of both properties from
all directions, singularly and also of the two properties together. Nuckols noted the slide
showing where the proposed new property line would be located.
Ayraud questioned Staff on when the 6,000 sq. ft. requirement was imposed. Barnes
responded it was in 1965 that the 6,000 sq. ft. requirement was enacted, however, until
sometime in the 1980's, there was a built-in provision in the Code that allowed lots platted
prior to 1965 to qualify for an automatic one-third reduction in lot area and lot width. Barnes
added that normally where you would need 12,000 sq. ft. of lot area to have two houses, this
property qualified under that older code provision wherein the 12,000 sq. ft. requirement
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 11
automatically was reduced to 8,000 sq. ft. Barnes noted that the Applicant's lot was 8,100 sq.
ft. and the lot reduction had been done prior to the elimination of this code provision later in
the 1980's.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Helen Rodriguez, addressed the Board. Rodriguez stated that she and her husband
have owned the property since 1957 and had lived there raising their children until 1977
when they purchased another home. Rodriguez said her children have since been living in
the two homes. Rodriguez stated that she is now retired and desires to sell the property and
believes it would be easier to sell if the homes were split, each with its own lot. The
Applicant commented that she has had several inquiries by prospective purchasers, but these
buyers only wanted to buy one home and couldn't afford to purchase both. Rodriguez
remarked that she could sell the property to investors to be used as rentals, but knowing the
lack of affordable housing, would prefer they be bought as owner occupied homes.
Rodriguez noted that the homes are located on a comer lot and believes there would be
adequate parking for either home. Rodriguez commented that her daughter may remain
living in the home towards the rear of the lot and could remove the privacy fence for more
parking in that area. The Applicant stated that when they originally purchased the property,
the building in the back was unfinished and was used for storage until they remodeled it into
a home.
Public Participation:
Yolanda Rodriguez, addressed the Board. Yolanda Rodriguez stated that she lives at 235 2"d
Street, the home to the rear of the property. Yolanda Rodriguez commented that she helps
her parents keep the property maintained and she is in support of splitting the property.
Board Discussion:
Breth stated that he supports splitting this property, as it could create viable, affordable
housing as opposed to being purchased by an investor and used as rental property.
Miscio questioned if the lot were split, would there be a possibility of a garage being added
to either lot. Barnes responded that in this zone, the floor areas of garages are not counted
and as long as the garages met the required setbacks it could be done.
Remington asked Barnes if there would be room to put a garage after the lot was split.
Barnes replied that the home at 235 2"d Street has 38 feet from the house to the property line,
which would require a 5' setback.
Breth made a motion to approve Appeal #2281 for the hardship stated. Remington seconded
the motion.
Miscio questioned if the line where the Applicant was asking for the lot to be split is the best
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 12
location, or would it be more beneficial to create the split at another location on the lot
allowing for more area if a garage addition was desired. Barnes pointed out that if the lot
line were moved closer to the home at 235 2"d Street to allow room for a garage on 121
Buckingham Street, the lot line between the two lots would then become the rear property
line and having that rear property line not adjoining an alley, they would have to adhere to a
15' setback from the rear which could result in a need for a variance for a garage addition.
There was some discussion by the Board and the Applicant if it would be prudent to table
this Appeal and give the Applicants more time to consider the best location for the lot split.
The Board determined they would vote on the variance requested today, with the allowance
that the Applicant could return with another variance request if they decide the lot line
placement is not conducive to their needs.
Vote:
Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski
Nays: None
Appeal 2281 was approved.
6. APPEAL 2282: -- Approved
Address: 833 Napa Valley Drive
Petitioner: Jason Baumgamer of Baumgamer Custom Homes, Owner
Zone: RL
Section: 4.3(D)(2)(b) and 4.3(D)(2)(c)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Roma Valley Drive from
20' to 16' and would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15' to
6' in order to allow a new home to be constructed on this comer lot. The home will face
Napa Valley Drive, which will function as the actual front lot line, but Roma Valley Drive is
the legal front lot line regardless of which way the home faces; therefore, the need of a
variance.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
This is a comer lot, wherein the home should front on the legal side lot line due to the shape
of the lot and the grading of the lot. The orientation is the most practical, but it conflicts with
the definition of front and rear lot lines. The proposed placement of the home complies with
the front, rear and side setbacks that would apply if Napa Valley were actually the legal front
lot line.
Staff Comments:
Bames commented that this variance addresses a typical comer lot situation that commonly
arises where the legal front lot line is the shortest of the two street frontages and the other
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 13
street property line becomes the side. Barnes noted that the Applicant will address the
reasons why he believes the house needs to be oriented to Napa Valley Drive which is the
legal side yard, but if Napa Valley Drive was the front lot line, the house would comply with
all the required setbacks.
Nuckols presented slides pertinent to the Appeal. Nuckols instructed the Board to refer to
their site plan in conjunction to her slides to obtain a better understanding of the plot layout.
Slides were shown of both Napa Valley Drive and Roma Valley Drive in relationship to the
Applicant's lot, the legal front property line and side property line. Slides were viewed of the
lot in all directions and the direction the proposed home would face if this variance were
approved.
Applicant Participation:
Jason Baumgamer, addressed the Board. Baumgamer stated that the house he desires to
build on this lot was designed on the lot with Napa Valley Drive being what he considered,
the front of the lot, meeting the setback requirements if that were the legal front lot line.
Baumgamer stated that he was not aware of the City determination between what was legal
and actual. Baumgamer commented that because of the grading and shape of the lot, it is the
most practical to put the house on the lot as he had it designed. The Applicant proceeded to
outline the requirements from the Stormwater Department including that the top of the
foundation of the house be 29.8 feet. Baumgamer stated that the back property pins were at
roughly 24 feet, so to face the house towards Roma Valley would cause the foundation to be
quite high in relationship to the low property. Baumgamer commented that he was issued
two addresses for this corner lot and assumed that he could face the house in either direction.
Baumgamer referred to the grading plan submitted to the Board. Baumgamer noted that in
the topography of the lot, the corner of Napa Valley Dr. and Roma Valley Dr. the pins are set
at 23.52 and 23.19 and at the west side of the lot, the pins are placed at 24.12 and 24.98. In
the grading plan, it was required that he put the driveway on the high side of the lot, which in
his opinion would be the northeast comer where the pins are 27.69 and would require a much
shallower grade driveway as opposed to placing it out on Roma Valley Drive where the
foundation would be at 29.8 and the street at approximately at 23.
Public Participation:
None
Board Discussion:
Ayraud questioned Staff if it was the City that determined the legal front and side lot lines of
a property. Barnes responded that City Code determines the legal front lot line by definition.
Barnes explained that on a corner lot, the legal front lot line is defined as the shortest of the
two street frontages. Ayraud asked if it were possible for the Board to grant a variance on
that definition. Barnes replied that there was no governing body that could grant a variance
on a definition.
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 14
Breth made a motion to approve Appeal#2282 due to the topography of the lot and for the
hardship stated. Remington seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski
Nays: None
Appeal 2282 was approved.
7. APPEAL 2283: -- Approved
Address: 502 West Laurel Street
Petitioner: Joe Ferrando, Community Corrections Director for Larimer County
Zone: NCB
Section: 3.2.2(K)(1)(d)
David Ayraud excused himself from hearing Appeal #2282 due to a conflict of interest.
Back ound:
The variance would reduce the required number of parking spaces from 42 spaces to 24
spaces in order to allow 18 additional residents to be housed in the Larimer County
Community Corrections Department's residential halfway house facility.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshin:
The Board was instructed to refer to the letter submitted by the Applicant for the Petitioner's
Statement of Hardship.
Staff Comments:
Nuckols presented slides pertinent to this Appeal. Slides were seen of the front of the
correctional facility, the cross street where the parking lot is accessed from the rear of the
building. Referring to the submitted site plan, Nuckols noted the existing 18 parking spaces
to the north of the building. The fence line was shown that separates the correctional facility
from the parking lot of Woody's Wood -fired Pizza, in addition to the parking spaces
allocated to the correctional facility by Woody's.
AApolicant Participation:
Joe Ferrando, addressed the Board. Ferrando stated that the Larimer County Attorney's
Office informed him that not all County facilities fall under the City Land Use Code, but the
Larimer County Community Corrections Department wanted to submit this application to be
in good faith with the City and also to maintain good relations with neighbors of the facility.
Ferrando commented that Woody's actually offered 6 of their parking spaces for use by the
County. Ferrando stated that due to the uniqueness of their correctional facility, they have
0
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 15
total control of how many of the facility residents drive and very few of them actually have
driving privileges. Due to this fact, Ferrando said the parking spaces for the residents that
they will be adding really are not an issue. Ferrando commented that the four staff members
they would be adding to the facility will have their working hours spread out over a 24 hour
period, seven days a week and therefore, they do not foresee a parking problem.
Remington questioned the Applicant how many of the facility staff were present at any one
time. Ferrando replied the busiest time of the day would be between 4:00 p.m and 7:00 p.m.,
at which time they would have eleven staff present. Ferrando noted that with the 18 beds
they intend on adding, the staff would total twelve for that same period of time. Remington
asked for clarification on the amount of parking spaces that would be available for staff.
Ferrando replied that they would have 24 spaces available for staff and residents including
the 6 spaces allocated by Woody's. Remington questioned the Applicant if he felt the 13
spaces available after staff parking would be enough to cover resident parking. Ferrando
responded that the 13 spaces would be more than adequate, due to the fact that at this time,
the facility has only 3 of the 69 residents allowed to have a vehicle on the property and this
amount could be lowered if needed.
City Attorney, Paul Eckman, commented that after reviewing the letter from Woody's Wood -
fired Pizza, he did not feel the letter alone was sufficient for the Board to rely on for the
additional parking spaces. Eckman stated that the letter is not an easement and could be
considered a license that could be revoked at any time.
Miscio asked Ferrando what prompted Woody's to offer the County the use of their 6 parking
spaces. Ferrando replied that the County approached Woody's, explaining that they would be
increasing their bed space at the facility and parking could be an issue. Ferrando added that
the County had approached Woody's with the idea of leasing the parking spaces, but Woody's
responded they had an abundance of parking and offered the spaces at no charge. Miscio
questioned whether the County might enter into a lease agreement with Woody's for a token
sum of $1, possibly giving them the legal right to use the spaces.
Pawlikowski asked Ferrando how the correctional facility was going to accommodate the 18
beds they would be adding. Ferrando replied that the facility would be adding a second story
to their existing building to accommodate for the bed space, expanding the side of the
building that would be facing the parking lot.
Public Participation:
Sheron Winfry, addressed the Board. Winfry resides at 315 West Oak St. Winfry stated that
she is in support of this Appeal. Winfry commented that as a frequent visitor to the halfway
house, she could affirm that parking in the facility lot is not an issue. Winfry commented
that she believed the 18 parking spaces that were approved for the halfway house had been
grandfathered in under a previous provision. She was also doubtful that the facility would
need the additional 6 spaces allocated by Woody's.
Eckman commented on the issue of a lease with Woody's. Eckman cautioned relying on a
lease agreement, unless it was a very long term lease, or if a specific length of time the
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 16
facility would be using the building could be determined, then an irrevocable lease could be
structured for that term. It was Eckman's opinion that a deed of an easement, terminating at
such time the County ceased to operate the halfway house at this location, would be
preferable over a lease.
Board Discussion:
Remington asked for clarification on if the variance request that was before the Board was
requesting a reduction in required parking spaces from 42 to 24, or because the 6 spaces from
Woody's are yet to be confirmed, is the Board to contemplate approving the variance for 18
spaces. If the Board were to approve the request for 24 spaces, would that in turn require a
document securing the 6 spaces from Woody's.
Eckman commented that based on the documentation provided by Woody's, the Board could
not consider those as viable. Eckman suggested that the Board could consider tabling the
appeal for 24 spaces until a deed of easement could be obtained, or the Board could reduce
the amount of required spaces and make a determination on the 18 spaces.
Barnes mentioned that if the Board would feel more comfortable with the 24 spaces and were
inclined to grant the variance, a condition could be attached wherein the County presented
the City with the required documentation for the 6 spaces prior to granting a building permit
for their addition. If they could not obtain that documentation, then the County would need
to have the variance heard again.
Miscio commented that it appears that the 18 spaces would be adequate and if the facility
would remain in its current use and the Board could address the parking issue if at some time
the use changed.
Eckman reiterated that the Applicant had mentioned that the facility could dictate that no
residents be allowed vehicles if necessary. It appears that there is an uncertain number of
those facility residents that can own a vehicle and the variance could be conditioned upon no
inmate vehicles being allowed, which would alleviate the concern of obtaining the spaces at
Woody's.
There was Board discussion on whether to place a condition on the variance requiring that
the County not issue residents more parking permits than available spaces. It appeared that
even if the Board were to cap the amount of resident vehicles at 6 and keeping a full staff,
they still would have adequate parking based on the existing 18 spaces.
Breth questioned the Applicant if facility residents were allowed visitors and if so, how that
would affect the parking situation. Ferrando responded that the inmates are allowed visitors
from the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with weekend visitation
hours from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Ferrando stated that weekend staff consists of no more
than 4 members at any given time with the shifts going down to one staff member overnight.
Ferrando commented that there have been no issues with parking for visitors.
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 17
Breth was in agreement that 18 spaces, if approved would be adequate, but would like to see
a limitation placed on the approval of the variance stating that it only be attached to this
facility.
Stockover questioned whether the Board could put a cap on the amount of spaces allowed for
residents and limit the variance to a structure that caters to people without cars.
Barnes commented that the Board could grant variances based on uniqueness of a property.
Barnes said what made this property unique was the makeup of the population that is housed
there, as the vast majority are not allowed to drive and the Board could include the condition
that none of them drive. Barnes commented that should the use change, it would be a
completely different situation.
Eckman questioned the Applicant how the facility determines if a resident can own a vehicle.
Ferrando replied the decision varies, many of the residents do not have valid driver's licenses,
so are automatically unable to drive. Ferrando elaborated that the programs structure is such,
that residents need to work their way through the program and get a certain amount of
savings in their account in order to move out. Ferrando said that when a resident is paying
for insurance etc. for a car, it slows them down in obtaining that goal. Another reason the
amount of driving residents is limited is because the County monitors the movement within
the community of all the clients. Ferrando commented that they only have 3 out of the 69
residents allowed to drive and they are their overachieving clientele with good paying jobs, a
good driving history and have earned the privilege. Ferrando stated that residents usually
are not granted the driving privilege, do not receive it until about a month before they leave
the facility, so they are not driving the entire time they are there.
Eckman asked a theoretical question of Ferrando, that if the amount of driving residents
could be out of the County's control, with the demographics of a group of residents at any
given time that have valid licenses and good paying jobs. Ferrando said the program has full
authority and can dictate who has driving privileges.
There was discussion on the requirements that determined parking spaces. Barnes stated that
it was required to have one space per two beds and one space per two employees. Barnes
mentioned that the facility did not have full staff at all times.
Stockover pondered the idea of granting a variance with a blanket cap stating that at any
given time, if the employee situation goes up or down they could not exceed an
employee/driver ratio over 2:1.
Remington asked the Applicant if the Board capped the resident parking at 6, would that
meet their programs needs. Ferrando replied that a cap at 6 spaces would not impact their
program at all.
Miscio liked the idea that overachievers are rewarded and did not want to limit that, if there
were 9 overachievers that earned the right to have a car and employees are not using all the
parking, then they should be able to use those spaces.
ZBA
March 16, 2000
Page 18
Breth said if there was enough parking for employees and visitors now, if their program is
successful enough that they need more spaces for residents, they could self regulate
themselves and try to obtain the lease with Woody's. Barnes commented that it appeared
visiting hours coincided with when CSU classes were not predominantly occurring. Barnes
mentioned that the Code does not provide for visitor parking.
Stockover wanted to know if the Board would be at risk of setting a precedent allowing self
government. Remington commented that this facility is a unique use here and would not be
treated the same way as if it were an apartment manager saying he was going to manage the
amount of cars.
Remington made a motion to approve Appeal #2283 for.thel8 parking spaces for the
hardship of a unique property, with the condition of approval be for the present use of the
facility. The motion was amended to limit the number of parking spaces available for
facility clients not to exceed six. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski
Nays: None
Appeal #2283 was approved.
Other Business:
Barnes presented the Board members with a list of dates for ZBA meetings for the calendar
year of 2000.
Meeting adjourned at 11:23 a.m.
William Stockover, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator