Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/12/1990ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Regular Meeting - July 12, 1990 - 8:30 a.m. Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 12, 1990 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Thede, Huddleson, Garber, Castillo, Wilmarth. Boardmembers absent: Lancaster. Staff present: Coldiron and Zeigler Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 14, 1990. Approved as Published The minutes of the June 14, 1990 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1955. Section 29-459(1) by Steve Levinger, owner, 511 MathPwm Atroat - Annrnuod with nnnAitinnc "--- The variance would allow the use of a detached building in connection with a home occupation. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing home is in an older part of town where garages where not built attached to the homes. The petitioner would like to be able to use the garage in connection with his business as numerous others do with attached garages. He feels that the ordinance creates a hardship to him because he is not afforded the same opportunity that the majority of homeowners have, simply because their garage is attached to their homes. The existing home is over 90 years old and to add an addition to the home would substantially detract from its character. --- Staff comments: none." No notices were returned. The attached note was received. Steve Levinger passed out the attached letter from Mona Nickerson, 515 Mathews, discussing her concerns. Steve builds architectural models and for the past four years has done it in his basement. Many times the models are too large to get out of the basement and he has to construct them outside. Clients have to pass through his home which creates a lack of privacy for his family. If his garage were attached, no variance would be needed. Boardmember Garber asked if any other home businesses exist within a two block area. Mr. Levinger knew of two, but didn't know if ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 2 they were legal businesses that had obtained a home occupation license. Mr. Garber asked if there is traffic in the alley now and if it would increase if the variance is approved. The petitioner said trash trucks frequent the alley and several residents use it to access their back yards or garages. His business has a client come about 3 to 4 times a month. The increase would be negligible. One additional parking space for clients handles his needs. Zoning Inspector Dan Coldiron said he had researched for similar variances and that in the past variances of the same sort had been granted with the condition that no other business could purchase the property and have a home occupation without a variance. Boardmember Huddleson questioned what the hardship was. He said it could be the fact that the garage is detached instead of attached. The petitioner said he needs to be afforded the same privilege as others who have attached garages. Boardmember Thede felt the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Wilmarth said she sees the hardship and feels the applicant has worked to the best of his ability in his basement but now needs other arrangements. Boardmember Garber asked if the laws for home occupations were established after the house was constructed. Mr. Coldiron said yes. Mr. Garber does feel that businesses detract from neighborhoods but if the neighbors don't complain there shouldn't be any problem. He said the traffic won't be prohibitive and he can see the hardship to his family. He would vote for the variance. Boardmember Thede felt a precedence was being set if approved. Mr. Garber said staff already commented that the variance has been granted in the past with conditions set. Therefore no precedence is being set. Boardmember Huddleson told the applicant he had a choice. He could add onto his house. He thought it was too subjective for him. The parking can't be controlled. There would be no checkpoints. He would vote to deny the variance. Dan Coldiron said the home occupation ordinance would be in effect and could be used as leverage for enforcement. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Carol Wilmarth said the only thing the Board was considering was the issue of having a home occupation in a detached garage, not parking or how many employees he had. Boardmember Castillo agreed and said the hardship was obvious to him and he would vote for the variance. ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 3 Boardmember Garber made a motion to approve the variance based on the hardship stated, with the condition that the variance is only good for the same use. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Castillo. Yeas: Garber, Castillo, Wilmarth. Nays: Huddleson and Thede. The variance was granted. Appeal #1956. Section 29-133(4),(5) by Connie L. Werner, owner, 935 W. Oak Street - Annroved "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet and the required side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet along the west property line for a garage addition. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing storage building is already at a 1/2 foot setback to the side lot line where the replacement would be moved out to a 2 foot setback. The narrowness of the lot makes it difficult to place a structure at the required setbacks. If made to comply, the structure would obstruct view to the alley from the home which is a security concern. The variance for the rear yard setback is needed to not negatively impact the large American Elm tree which exists in the middle of the back yard. If the petitioner were to comply with the required setbacks the elm would need to be trimmed back, which could endanger its existence. --- Staff comments: none." There were no notices returned. One letter was received. Petitioner Connie Werner told the Board if she were to build the garage with legal setbacks, it would be placed right in the middle of her backyard. She feels if the neighbors were going to complain they would certainly have cause to if she did that. Being an alley walker, she does not think her request is out of line. Many people have garages in the same place she is proposing to put hers. The elm tree was sick and she spent a lot of money having it trimmed and nursed back to health and she would hate to destroy it. Coming from Florida, security is important to her. The neighbors know that she lives alone and watch out for her. She does not want a two car garage, and feels one car will be in better keeping with the neighborhood. She would have alley access. Boardmember Garber asked if the other garages in the neighborhood are old or new. She said some of them looked to be about 10 years old and were wood frame construction. Some of them were older. There was no one to speak for or against the variance. E ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Garber thought the structure looked too large for the property. He asked if there were any laws regulating building square footage to size of the lot. Dan Coldiron said yes, but the garage floor area is not considered. Boardmember Huddleson said the narrowness of the lot is the hardship along with the elm tree. Boardmembers Wilmarth and Thede agreed. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the garage not exceed the dimensions of 21'x 221. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Thede, Huddleson, Garber, Castillo and Wilmarth. Nays: None. Motion carried. Appeal #1957. Section 29-493(2) by Faith Evangelical Free Church, owner. 1600 W. Drake - Tabled "--- The variance requested would eliminate the requirement for a solid wooden fence, 6 feet in height, and screen headlights associated with a parking area, located in the RL zone, from adjacent residentially zoned property. This parking area will not be used at night. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The requirement of a fence on this lot in the RL zone should be varied because of its existence in the floodway and, because it is surrounded by the Ross Green Area and contiguous to Roland Moore Park. The landscaping will meet the requirements for the 75% opacity plus the existing foliage near Spring Creek will more than meet those requirements. The parking lot will be recessed to meet City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage requirements which also help opacity requirements. --- Staff comments: The only reason that the parking ordinance requires a fence is to screen headlights of vehicles from adjacent residential uses. If a parking lot is not in a residential zone or directly adjacent to a residential use then the code does not require a fence. There are a number of Peculiar and unique 1. While the property is surrounded by residentially zoned land, this land is open space owned by the City. This land will remain open space. The property is really not in a residential subdivision. 2. The three or four houses to the west are 200 to 300 feet away and are located on the other side of the bike path ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 5 and Spring Creek. The rear yards of these houses are heavily landscaped in their own right and should not be affected by any headlights. 3. The parking lot will rarely, if ever, be used at night. 4. Due to the slope of the lot required by the storm drainage department on the west side of the parking lot, the cars will actually be pointing in a downward direction. This means that even if the lot was used at night the headlights would not be shining directly into anyone's yard or house. 5. The entire lot is in the floodway. This means that no structures can be built due to the possibility of them becoming dislodged in a flood and floating downstream, where they might damage other property or persons. A breakaway fence may be a possibility, but even then there is no assurance that fencing might not float downstream. This may be an unnecessary risk since a fence for headlight screening is probably not needed and wouldn't serve the public good. The storm drainage department would prefer not to have a fence installed. 6. While constructing a parking lot would change the character of the open space to a degree, at least it will have landscaping compatible to the area and will only be used on Sundays. Constructing a 6 foot fence around a lot surrounded by open space and wetlands would be an abrupt intrusion into the character of the open space and would be visible every day. The natural resources department, as well as the planning department, would prefer not to have a fence installed. 7. If the City's property surrounding this lot were not zoned residential, then a variance would not be needed because a fence would not be required. Since there will be no residential development adjacent to this lot, the intent of the ordinance is met. The Code allows a variance to be granted based on hardships imposed by "extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of such piece of property." The preceding statements explain the uniqueness of this property. The Code also allows that a variance can be granted when it will not result in substantial detriment to the public good and when it will not impair the intent of the code. Requiring a fence will probably be more of a detriment to the public good due to the visual appearance of the fence in the open space and its possible hazard during a flood, whereas granting the ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 6 variance should not result in substantial detriment to the public good. The Board has granted similar variances to delete the required fence when the directly adjacent property owner agrees to it deletion, but usually with the condition that if said property owner decides that the fence is needed, then the fence would have to be built. There were no notices or letters received. Zoning Inspector Dan Coldiron clarified a couple of items on the variance request. The variance requested would eliminate the requirement for a solid wood fence and it should also eliminate the requirement for screening of headlights. He explained that with this section of the code, you can substitute a solid wooden fence or a landscaped treatment which would block 75% opacity of headlights during winter season and stated the variance requested should be for eliminating the requirement for a solid. wood fence Plus eliminating the requirement for screening of headlights. Glen Schlueter with the city storm drainage department explained this property is entirely in the floodway which is the high velocity zone on the plain. The FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirement says a parking lot is an allowed use in a flood way, however any use in a floodway cannot cause a rise in the water surface of the 100 year flood plain. A fence could be placed around the parking lot as long as it is designed so that it either swings up or falls down (called a swing away fence) before that elevation is reached. As far as landscaping, he said it could be installed with the same provision, it cannot cause a rise. He stated the church is proposing to lower the parking lot so that the top of the curbs will be level with existing ground. What that effectively does, is lower the flood plain about six inches and then if they put shrubs or landscaping around it, it could push it right back up where it was. The ultimate is that it should not cause a rise which eliminates evergreens. Dan Coldiron said the entire parking lot would require fencing except on the street frontage, except where there would be probable access to the bike trail. A parking lot in a residential zone needs to have a fence, 6 foot wood or masonry or have the landscape treatment to block headlights from the residential zone district. Boardmember Wilmarth said basically they are here for a variance because all of the requirements of zoning are not allowed under the storm drainage laws. Dan Coldiron confirmed this saying the church would rather eliminate the fence and put landscaping in, but storm drainage will not allow this. Mr. Coldiron said we got a statement from the city attorney's office stating the Board is not pre- empted by federal regulation in this matter. ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 7 Dan Anstead representing the church building committee said they are adding onto the church and need additional parking. He said the break away fence is not cheap and there is about 1000 feet of fence to be installed to screen the parking area. At least 1/2 of the parking lot adjoins open space which the city owns. The fence would close in the open space. He said there is residential area behind the trees and they do propose putting landscaping in. After talking to Mr. Schlueter, there is a good chance that some of the proposed landscaping would raise the water level. There are so many variables concerned in this project and the church is trying to work with all concerned to comply. There are 175 parking spaces at the church and no land available to expand on that side of the road. They will be adding 1200 seat sanctuary and desperately need the parking. Mr. Anstead said the church is in the process of working a swap with the city. The church owns three acres across the street and will trade equal square footage. The city will get access from Dunbar onto the bike trail in the trade. The cost of a regular fence is about $6 to $10 per foot and at 1000 feet, the church would be looking at $10,000 for a standard fence. He was sure that a breakaway fence would cost more. Mr. Anstead felt the issues were the cost of the fence; that even though it is a residential area, it is open space where nothing can be built. The parking lot will be used on Sunday mornings only, so headlights will not be a problem. While Mr. Anstead was at the podium, the chairman asked that he amend the variance request for the record. Mr. Anstead said he was also asking the Board to relieve the church from the landscape requirement as well as the fencing requirement. Mr. Anstead said they would like to break ground on September 1st for the sanctuary. They would like to get the parking lot started as soon as possible because they are resurfacing Drake and would like to have all of their construction underway prior to that because they will be bringing a drainage line under Drake and that's supposed to be done by the end of the month. When the construction trailers get moved in for the addition it will eliminate parking and the parking lot will be even more important. Mr. Coldiron told the Board the interior landscape islands will exceed the 6% requirement at 7%. However, someone will have to look at the plan from storm drainage and the arborist's office and give approval. Boardmember Garber asked if the western portion of the parking lot (the portion closest to the residential homes) was blocked off and not used, would the petitioner be opposed to this. Mr. Anstead said he personally would not have any problem with this, but would need to speak to the building committee before replying. He thought there would be some occasion when it would be necessary to use the entire lot, i.e., Christmas Eve. ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 8 Glen Schlueter said the church hasn't provided proof that their interior landscape islands will be acceptable. He voiced doubts about the landscaping along Drake because it is perpendicular to the flow and the same with the western portion of it. The interior parking will probably be offset by the lowering of the parking lot and the smoothness of the asphalt, but if they are blocking it upstream or downstream from that there could be a problem. Mr. Schlueter said if there are problems, they won't be allowed. If the parking lot was allowed to be built against FEMA regulations, it would eliminate the city's ability to obtain flood insurance on any property. Mr. Coldiron said if there is a problem with the interior islands, they will have to resubmit for another variance, but wanted it known that there is a variance procedure through FEMA that is a possibility. There was no one present to speak in favor of the variance. Tobin James, 2542 Newport, and Bruce and Renie Baker, 2530 Newport, spoke against the variance. Mr. Baker said they would like to see a fence installed and would be happy to help in the construction of it. The neighbors worry that this parking lot will act as an overflow parking spot for softball games. Mr. Jones said the homes were built in 1974 and 1975. The neighborhood had no landscaping at that time. The homeowners have put in all of the trees and feel the city's requirement for fencing or landscape buffering is reasonable. There is not an adequate reason to grant this variance. Boardmember Huddleson asked if the homeowners have talked with the church. They stated they hadn't. Mr. Jones said they are not opposed to the parking lot and see that the church has no options, but there is a need to have the zoning requirements respected. The noise from the traffic on Drake is dramatically intensified when the grass is mowed in the green belt area. Pavement will make it even worse. The homeowners felt a fence or landscaping would help the noise level. Boardmember Wilmarth thought the fence would keep a lot of the trail parking traffic out of the parking lot. Boardmember Thede asked what type of lighting the parking lot would have. Mr. Coldiron said they would be required to provide lighting as in other parking lots. Ms. Thede wondered if the six foot fence take into consideration the lighting that will be required. Mr. Coldiron said the intent of the code for the screening is only for headlights, nothing else. After looking at the code, Mr. Coldiron said lighting would not be required but if any light would be installed, the light shall be shielded from residentially zones lots to prevent spill -over of direct light on residential uses. ZBA Minutes July 12, 1990 Page 9 Boardmember Huddleson asked if it would be of value to table the variance and see if the parties could work out something. He would rather see if neighbors could resolve things rather than leave it up to a city board and commission. He said he sees the conflicting points and thinks it will take considerable time to debate the issue. He would rather see people work these things out. Mr. Bert Bassert said he was on the building committee for the church. He said they have no reason to object to trying to work this out but would like a time limit put on this with the urgency of the expansion, parking is needed. They are already a month behind on the project. He said a month from now they could come back to the Board, if tabling means that they don't have to reapply, they will meet with the neighbors and come back to the Board. There was a 15 minute recess so that the neighbors and the building committee could talk. After discussion the neighbors and church thought a good solution would be to fence the west side and fifty feet of the north corner. This would be contingent on berms with swales being installed on the Drake frontage. They need to do some modeling and engineering and present to Glen Schlueter. Boardmember Huddleson said he understood but needed to know how to proceed. He pointed out it is the church's application and he didn't want to unduly delay the construction. Would they like it tabled or like to proceed. The church wanted to table the variance until the August 9th meeting and at that point the applicant may lessen the variance request to partial screening. Boardmember Thede made a motion to table the variance at the request of the applicant until the next meeting. An attorney is requested to be present at that time. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Garber. Motion carried 5-0. Yeas: Thede, Huddleson, Garber, Castillo, Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Chuck Huddleson, Vice Chairman Dan Coldiron, Staff Liaison