Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/10/1990ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Regular Meeting May 10, 1990 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 10, 1990 at 8:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Wilmarth, Huddleson, Thede, Lawton and Nelson. Boardmembers absent: Spight, Lancaster. Staff present: Barnes, Zeigler and Eckman. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 12, 1990, Approved as Published Appeal #1946. Section 29-473 by Daryl Kimmel of River Song Waldorf School, petitioner, 725 W. Drake Road - Approved with conditions "--- The variance would allow an outdoor play area for a child care center in the RL zone to have a portion of their fence not be a solid fence with a height of 6 feet. Specifically, the proposed fence would consist of 147 feet of solid 6 foot high fencing, 14 feet of solid 5 foot high fencing, 14 feet of solid 4 foot high fencing, and 47 feet of 4 foot high fencing with 3-1/2 inch horizontal openings evenly spaced. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The intent of the ordinance is to provide an adequate sound barrier for such outdoor play areas when they are in a residential area. This play area will be located far enough away from residential lots so that the noise from children will be minimal at best. This, coupled with the noise from children will be traffic on Drake Road, should mitigate any noise concerns. However, a 6 foot high solid fence will be located where the play area is directly facing abutting residential lots, and areas of the fence which are less than 6 feet face the parking lot and a detention pond. A more open fenced enclosure, as proposed, provides a more beneficial outdoor environment for the children. There is existing landscaping around the play area. --- Staff comments: None." There were three notices returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the Board the property in question is the Har Shalom Church. Slides of the property showed all houses, but one, that lined the east property line, have six foot privacy fences installed. n L� ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 2 Mr. Barnes said the neighborhoods by the and visual barriers. intent of the code was to protect residential influx of day care centers by providing sound Daryl Kimmel, 4617 Skyline Drive, is on the Board of Directors for the school. He feels the intent is being met by the proposed fence structure. The height is the only problem, plus they want some openings in the fence to avoid the closed in affect of a privacy fence. Boardmember Lawton questioned whether the opening would pose a hazard. The petitioner said by code the opening can't be more than 6 inches. He is proposing a 3-1/2 inch sphere. He explained the school will house pre-school and kindergarten children from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. during the week, but would also be used by the congregation at other times. The fence will jog to accommodate existing trees. Boardmember Wilmarth asked why the fence was four feet high - didn't they worry about kids climbing over the fence. The petitioner said there will be two instructors for 10 children and they are never left unsupervised. He felt if a child really wanted out, a six foot fence could be easily climbed also. No one was present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Thede said it was unusual in location. The neighbors are protected in this area. It is a fully developed area. She had no problems with the variance. Boardmember Nelson agreed; the privacy fences already installed will give sound protection. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the fence comply with submitted drawings. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Wilmarth, Huddleson, Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1947. Section 29-595(h) by Hewlett-Packard, owner, 3404 E. Harmony Rd. - Approved with conditions "--- The variance would allow three freestanding signs along the Harmony Road frontage of Hewlett-Packard instead of the one allowed by Code. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing HP sign at the main entrance, a new smaller identification sign at the recently opened east gate of 28 square feet per face, and a new traffic directional sign of 7.5 square feet to be located east of the recently opened east gate. ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 3 --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property has 4000 feet of frontage along Harmony. The two gates are a 1/4 mile apart, and the eastern gate has just recently been opened in conjunction with the opening of Building 6 and the new loading dock facility. It is important to direct trucks to the east entrance and visitors to the west entrance in order to minimize internal vehicular traffic problems. Since the speed limit on Harmony is 55 MPH it is necessary to have a directional sign with letters large enough to read at those speeds, therefore a 7.5 square foot sign is needed. The east entrance is now another main entrance and it is necessary to put some ID sign there to advertise it as such. The proposed 28 square foot sign will accomplish this, and it is certainly small enough so as not to add clutter to this street scape. Staff Comments: None." No notices or letters were received. Peter Barnes showed slides of the site and explained if signs are visible from the street or the property line, they are regulated by the sign code. Michael Bellow, employee of Hewlett Packard, said the frontage on their property is actually 3/4 mile long. Signs are critical for traffic flow. One entrance is on County Road 9 and serves contract laborers; the west entrance is for visitors; and the east entrance serves trucks and vendors going to newly constructed Building 6. There are an estimated 3300 employees, plus they estimate 300 vehicles a day at the east entrance after Building 6 opens. Signage would help eliminate accidents, because there are no signs any closer than the east exit for trucks coming from I-25. He said Hewlett Packard does not want a lot of clutter or too much signage, but feel three signs are needed. There was no one in the audience to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Lawton said Hp does a great job of landscaping and the architecture of their buildings across the United States is very nice. He felt the amount of traffic is a hardship and warrants additional signage. Boardmember Nelson said the size of street frontage doesn't make three signs excessive and the signs don't pose a hardship for adjacent property owners. Boardmember Thede passes Hewlett Packard several time a day and feels directional signs are needed. She made a motion to approve ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 4 the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the signs are built per plans submitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lawton. Yeas: Wilmarth, Huddleson, Lawton, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. Motion carried. Appeal #1948. Section 29-148, 29-133(2), 29-133(3) by Mark Deters, owner. 606 Justice Dr. - Amnroved "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width, at the narrowest point of the lot on which the building sits, from 60 feet to 50 feet. The variance would also reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet for a new single family home in the RLP zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: This lot was platted years ago. Because of the 60 foot lot width requirement, the lot has a legal building envelope of about 36 feet wide by 26 feet deep. Since the subdivision covenants require a 2-car garage, it would not be possible for any house to be built without needing either a front yard, rear yard, or lot width variance. A front yard variance is requested because this model is the one that comes closest to fitting in the envelope. But because of the shallowness of the lot, only 69 feet, it is necessary to move the house up 2 feet in order to meet the rear yard setback requirement. There is no land available to purchase from adjacent lots. --- Staff comments: The petitioner did not plat this subdivision, therefore it is doubtful that this should be considered a self-imposed hardship. The 69 foot depth of the lot is very shallow. The average lot depth is between 90 and 110 feet." No notices were returned and the attached two letters were received. Mr. Barnes said before the variance was considered the Board needed to consider amending the variance request. It was discovered after notices had been sent out that the lot area is only 5,614 square feet and by code it has to be 6,000 square feet. Therefore a reduction in lot area needs to be considered by the Board before a building permit can be issued. The plat for this subdivision was approved in 1976. He wasn't familiar with the process at that time, but somehow the plat was approved with this lot area deficiency. Since the notice that was sent out to adjacent property owners did not include the lot reduction request, the Board needs to consider whether they want to consider the variance request at this time or table the appeal until the next regular meeting of the Board. ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 5 Boardmember Huddleson asked legal counsel to address this issue. Paul Eckman said he examined the code requirements on notices and it does not state that the various requests need to be enumerated. Only notice of the date of the hearing needs to be given. There is no violation of the code by amending the variance request at today's meeting. Mark Deters requested the Board consider the amendment at this time. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the amendment. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Motion carried unanimously. Peter Barnes said all of the lots in this area have been developed except this particular pie shape lot. The depth of the lot is 69' on the north side. This is unusual; 90 to 110' depth is the normal lot depth. The lot width is not the front of the lot but the narrowest portion of the lot on which the building sits, measured from side lot line to side lot line, parallel to the front property line. When you find where they propose to locate the house it measures a 50 foot wide lot. To achieve the 60 foot lot requirement, the house would have a 0 rear setback. Some variance would be needed, no matter where they locate the house on the lot. Mark Deters, 2889 Raymond Drive, Loveland, Colorado, explained why he needed the variance. He feels the request conforms to what is considered acceptable today. He said there are five homes in the area that don't meet the 20 foot setback, but are at 15 feet. He didn't think these houses needed a variance. The house is a four level with the garage under. It has 1570 square feet. If they changed the garage to a single car garage, which wouldn't be accepted by the subdivision covenants, it still wouldn't work. Peter Barnes said two houses in the same neighborhood had to have variances in 1985, but they were already built when the setback error was found. Boardmembers voiced their displeasure with the city for approving plats with illegal lots. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Wilmarth, Huddleson, Lawton, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. Motion carried. ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 6 Appeal #1949. Section 29-133(2) by Pastor Marvin Martinez, 525 loth Street - Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone. The home will comply with all of the required setbacks. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: This lot is in an older subdivision which was platted before the Code required a 60 foot lot width. Without a variance, nothing can be built. A number of similar variances have been granted in the last several years for lots in this subdivision. A home used to exist on the lot but was demolished about 4-1/2 years ago. --- Staff comments: 11 similar variances have been granted in this subdivision, 7 on this street alone. Nothing can be built on the lot without a variance and the owner would be denied reasonable use of his property." No notices or letters were received. Peter Barnes said the request is the same that has been granted many times in this area. There are no options, because the lot was platted years ago before the newer lot width requirements. Marvin Martinez is the Pastor of the church across the street from this lot. The proposed modular that is being moved on the lot will act as a parsonage. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Lawton said without a variance nothing can be built on this lot and since 11 similar variances have been approved in this area, he had no problems with it. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Wilmarth, Huddleson, Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Nays: None. Motion carried unanimously. Appeal #1950. Section 29-178(1), 29-471 by Mary Hamilton, for Discovery Land child Care Center, 1201-1203 Montgomery - Denied "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area for a child care center in the RM zone from 9000 square feet to 5, 701 square feet. This would allow the existing child care center at 1205 Montgomery to expand into the building on the adjacent lot at 1201-1203 in order to provide a school -age program. C� • ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 7 --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing child care facility does not provide a school -age program. A need for this type of program exists in the community. Discovery land would like to expand into the building at 1201-1203 Montgomery in order to provide the program. Since it is a separate, principal building, the Code requires 9000 square feet. If the buildings were connected, only 9000 square feet of lot area would be required. They can't be connected since the buildings are under separate ownership. The petitioner intends on buying the property later in the year. There is adequate outdoor play area to comply with the requirements necessary for 60 children. Typically, all the operations of a child care center are conducted under one roof. This proposal would result in a campus -like center. See petitioner's letter for additional explanation. --- Staff comments: None." No notices or letters were received. Peter Barnes tried to simplify the variance request by explaining the existing child care center of Discovery Land is located in what used to be a duplex. They have their fenced in play area and there is a duplex directly adjacent to it. They are proposing to convert at least the bottom floor of this two story duplex to indoor floor space to be used in conjunction with a school age program which is another program they would like to start. As mentioned, this becomes somewhat unusual from other day care center where we are dealing with only one building on a lot. Here we are dealing with two buildings on two lots, which makes it a campus type environment. Behind it there is an apartment building. A six foot high fence will be built around the back yard area to enlarge the play area to accommodate the additional needs that might arise. Across the street more multi -family exists plus a health club and various medical/dental offices and a funeral home. The lot that the duplex is sitting on only has approximately 5700 square feet of lot area. Since it is under separate ownership and has a separate principal building, the requirement for the lot area would be 9000 square feet of lot area. The lot that originally existed had more than 5701 square feet but a portion of the lot was deeded off to add the parking lot for the apartments in the rear. Peter Barnes explained many times, property is sold off and the city isn't notified of it and an illegal lot is formed. Mr. Barnes said if they buy the property as they intend to do later in the year, then there is one lot, but you have two principal buildings. He cited one of the sections of the code that requires a minimum lot area for a child care center of 9000 square feet for ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 8 each principal building. If they don't connect the two buildings, then they have two principal buildings and would need 18,000 square feet of lot area, which they still wouldn't have by combining the lot areas. If they bought the two lots and connected the building by way of a breezeway then the building code would consider it one building and they would have ample lot area for this project. If they owned the property and connected the buildings, Mr. Barnes stated, they would not need a variance. The problem comes from the fact that they do not own the building. Petitioner Mary Hamilton who lives at 1209 Montgomery said they opened the child care center in 1984 and it filled up very quickly. At age 6 the children need to go to another facility. She explained that the current building has a variance. She and her partner have looked at churches, commercial shopping centers and they just can't find a property that will work for their expansion. They have been working with Poudre Fire Authority on a suitable location and think they have a solution with the proposed property on Montgomery Street. Ms. Hamilton and her husband own the present day care center and live in the house east of it. She and her partner are proposing buying 1201-1203 Montgomery in their name. Discovery Land will lease from them. There are some potential legal problems in combining the titles of these two properties. Ms. Hamilton said she talked to two homeowners and they have no problem with the variance being granted. They are located close to Riverside which is a commercial area. They now accommodate 34 children and if the variance is granted they will be able to take in 26 additional children. Parents will be dropping off children between 6:30 and 9:30 a.m. and pick-ups run from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m.. They will provide transportation to school age children to and from school. They will add 2-1/2 employees and will provide enough parking to fulfill the parking requirement. Discussion was held by board members regarding basing the variance on this child care center only or on their ownership only. Ms. Hamilton brought up the fact that she does not own the property yet and contracts have not been signed. Members showed concern because they felt the variance would stay with the property. Peter Barnes thought the Board should consider, if they are planning on granting this variance, conditions. Conditions can be made to tie it to Discovery Land and the same ownership of the child care center. If, in five years, the applicant decided they wanted to sell the property, if it wasn't going to be the same ownership and operation, the variance would be void. Boardmember Huddleson asked why 9000 square feet was needed. He asked Mr. Barnes to explain what he would be sacrificing if he agreed to this variance. Mr. Barnes said the 9000 square feet ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 9 requirement in the RM zone does not apply to every use. It applies to anything other than a single family dwelling or a duplex. All the other uses such as churches, child care centers, require the 9000 square foot area. Those uses are more intense uses with higher density and the intent is to preserve open space in the neighborhood by requiring a larger lot for those types of uses. You need a larger lot because you have more people, you need to provide more parking and you don't want to crowd the neighborhood. The more intense the use gets the greater the lot area requirement. Boardmember Lawton asked why Ms. Hamilton doesn't purchase the property and connect the two buildings and then she wouldn't need the variance. She said it was a problem because if the contract to buy doesn't go through they could still lease the property. Boardmember Huddleson asked Attorney Eckman if she had the right to request a variance when she was not owner of the property and didn't appear to even have a contract on it. Mr. Eckman said she would need the consent of the property owner. She said she had the consent of the property owner. Mr. Eckman said in the perfect situation we would have written consent from the property owner. He thought there was a contract already signed, containing a contingency regarding this variance, which would have met that requirement. He feels it would not be harmful to go ahead and consider the variance, because if they do grant the variance it would not impose any additional limitations on the present property owners if no deal is made. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Huddleson said he could not see a hardship in the situation. Boardmember Thede thought the hardship was that the lot was reduced before she wanted to purchase it. Boardmember Nelson said it meets all other operational codes imposed on it other than our 9000 square foot requirement and disregarding our requirement the business could operate within the law. Boardmember Huddleson said when they sold off part of the lot and made an illegal lot, the owner self-imposed a hardship. Boardmember Lawton said the project can be completed without a variance and he is considering that when making his decision. Ms. Hamilton said the lot size is a hardship. All other requirements are being met. They have been looking for two years and any property they have found would need a variance. The lot size exists as such and yet there is enough space for the children. Boardmember Nelson suggested approval under the condition that the property be bought and united within a specific amount of time, or variance would be null and void. C ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 10 Boardmember Lawton made a motion to deny the variance request because there is lack of a hardship. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Wilmarth, Huddleson, Lawton, Thede. Nays: Nelson. Motion carried 4-1. Appeal #1951. Section 29-178(2) by Larimer County Habitat for Humanity. 523 Maple Street - Denied "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. This same variance was granted 8/10/89, but a building permit was not issued within the six month time limit. Therefore, the petitioner is re -applying for the same variance for the same building. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is an existing lot with only 45 feet of lot width. The same variance would be required for even a single family dwelling. The building could be turned and located at the rear of the lot and no variance would be required, but accessibility and use of the lot would not be maximized by such a layout. The proposed location would allow fenced in privacy areas, separate access points and better utilization of the lot. --- Staff Comments: None." Two notices were returned. The four attached letters were received. Carol Wilmarth stated she had interests in property on Whitcomb and stepped down from this appeal because of a possible conflict of interest. Let the record show that ZBA members all received letters and phone calls from Robin Ferrugia and the Keys. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said only one member of the Board heard this appeal last time around, so it is fairly new to everyone on the Board. He explained the L shaped lot. It is a deep lot. The width of the lot is 45 feet if the building is placed toward the front of the lot. The width of the lot toward the back is 135 feet from the lot line of the alley to the west lot line. The building could be turned and located at the rear of the lot and no variance would be required. Denise Case, petitioner, said they purchased the lot after the first variance was approved. Their goal was to maximize privacy for the two families. The configuration necessitates a variance. Many homes on Whitcomb are very close to each other. Natural barriers exist between the lots allowing for privacy of the neighbors. A large rear setback exists. The longer drive does not ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 11 fit in with the neighborhood if they place both units at the rear of the lot. Many of the neighbors in the area have been contacted by Habitats and they have gotten a good response until the last couple of weeks. They more than meet the square footage requirement. Denise said the reason the variance expired is they needed to raise funds for water and sewer taps. They are now ready to build. Although there are alternatives, they are not favorable. Robin Ferrugia, 230 N. Whitcomb, spoke opposed to the variance. She said a lot of the neighbors didn't know how to approach the Board. When Habitat bought the lot, Ms. Ferrugia feels they knew a variance would be needed. She feels Habitat are putting a hardship on the neighbors. She said she knows for a fact the Bank of Wyoming is offering lots on the other side of North College to Habitat to build on, and they would serve them much better. Ms. Ferrugia called all of the people on the adjacent property owner list submitted to the zoning office and all of them are against the variance. She feels where they are intending to build the duplex is coming too close to other peoples homes. The living rooms will face others bedrooms. Ms. Ferrugia said she has a lung irritation problem and has been in Poudre valley Hospital with illnesses concerning that. She needs a good air environment to remain healthy. She said a privacy fence will not work here; young trees would have to be destroyed. She pointed out the duplex is 8 feet from 521 W. Maple. When it snows, the roof slope is such that the snow will fall between the properties in the proposed entry. The sun will be blocked and the light blocked. The snow won't melt under those circumstances. The mold and bacteria will put people in the hospital. She also understands there is a law in Fort Collins that protects neighbors from having their solar energy possibilities blocked. The duplex would cause this interference. Ms. Ferrugia said Habitat for Humanities can build without a variance, so no hardship exists. Ms. Case reiterated that the variance was in effect before the land was purchased. Responding to the future use of the land, Ms. Case said no further construction is allowed on the land. The living rooms are on the ground level at the north and south ends of the project. Responding about the 8 feet from the neighbors front door, it is actually 8 feet from the property line, not the front door. She pointed out that both houses that are for sale on the block, were for sale before Habitat bought the land. Ms. Case said they have licensed professionals looking for the best location on the lot and the best design for the lot. Ken Riccard, Chairman of Construction for Habitat for Humanities, said he measured from Ms. Ferrugia's back yard to the site of the duplex and it measures 50 feet. He provided a site plan to the Board showing this measurement. ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 12 Ms. Ferrugia said it is not 50 feet from her house to the duplex. She feels the measurements are wrong. Boardmember Lawton said he had a problem with the variance request and because they don't really need a variance to build. The other variances approved today had no other options. Boardmember Nelson said the first variance is water under the bridge. Variances are granted because no other option exists. He said he feels bad but it is definitely self-imposed. Boardmember Huddleson said there were no neighbors opposed to the hardship when it was first approved. Now they are being voiced and the hardship should be there on its own merit. Assistant City Attorney Eckman referred to Section 29-41(c) which said the Board first has to find a hardship with respect to the applicant, and secondly, granting the variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. Boardmember Thede said if the variance was denied, she felt the neighbors would have a worse problem, but since there is no hardship shown, she will vote against the variance. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to deny the variance request for lack of a hardship. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lawton. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Nelson. Nays: Huddleson. Motion carried 3-1. Appeal #1952. Section 29-133(4), 29-133(5) by Leland Balthazor, owner. 938 W. Oak Street - Approved with conditions "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet and the side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 1-1/2 feet for an addition to an existing detached garage in the RL zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing garage is only 18 feet wide, making it very difficult to park 2 cars side by side. The petitioner would like to enlarge the garage and at the same time add a work area and hydroponics room on a second floor. The existing garage is already only 1-1/2 feet from the east lot line and the addition would like up with the existing wall. The rear setback is requested in order to extend the depth of the garage. Building the 4 foot addition on the south side would decrease the parking and backup distance between the house and the garage. This would make it difficult to maneuver a car past the edge of the house since the garage is accessed from Oak Street instead of the alley. ZBA Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 13 --- Staff comments: None." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Mr. Balthazor said he is proposing to add four foot at the end of the garage and a hydroponics lab for indoor gardening. He owns this property as a fixer upper and plans on using it for his retirement home. A fire wall will need to be added to the wall of the garage on the property line. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the appropriate firewall be installed. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Wilmarth, Huddleson, Thede, Nelson. Nays: Lawton. Motion carried 4-1. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Charles Huddleson, Vice Chairman i G 7 cc 9 Peter Barnes, Staff Liaison