Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/10/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — April 10, 2008 8:30 a.m. 11Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 I Chairperson: Dwight Hall II 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Bello Ronald Daggett Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride Jim Pisula David Shands EXCUSED ABSENCES: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Suess, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 13, 2008 meeting. Shands seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Abstain: 3. APPEAL NO. 2605 - PARTIALLY APPROVED Address: 501 N. Shields St. Petitioner: Leah Bishop Zone: NCL Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) and (4) Background: This variance request was originally scheduled to be considered at the March 13, 2008 ZBA meeting. However, the request was tabled to the April 10, 2008 meeting. ZBA April 10, 2008— Pa,ge 2 The variance will allow a fence in the front yard to be taller than 4 feet and to be located within the line -of -sight triangle. Specifically, the variance will allow the recently constructed 5 foot tall yard fence to remain in its current location, and allow for the construction of a matching 5 foot tall fence along the north lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property is a corner lot at the intersection of Sycamore and Shields. Shields is a major arterial street, which carries a large volume of traffic at a higher than normal residential neighborhood speed. The 5' tall fence helps to buffer the visual and audio impacts of the street. The fence is a very attractive fence, which is more aesthetically pleasing than a normal 4' tall picket fence. The pickets are only 4' tall, and the top portion of the fence has an open design. Therefore, it satisfies the intent of the code equally well as a fence that complies since it doesn't create a stockade, tunnel effect along a street. Shields Street is elevated above the height of this lot; therefore, even though the fence is in the line -of -sight triangle, motorists are able to see over the top of the fence. Staff Comments: The Board may find that the height of the fence satisfies the purpose of the standard equally well as would a 4' high fence. Along an arterial street, such as Shields, the fence ordinance states that if used along collector or arterial streets, the fence "shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a `tunnel" effect. Compliance with this standard may be accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation or openings into the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence, or softening the appearance of fence lines with plantings, or similar techniques." The design of the fence with open 1' design on top of the solid pickets and the varying height of the pickets help to make the fence visually interesting and avoid creating a tunnel effect as stated in the purpose of the regulation, and is more appealing than many solid, 4' high fences which comply with the standard. Since Shields Street is a wide street, certainly wider than a local street, the fence design and varying height will not create a tunnel effect. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. Barnes read a letter into the record from John Han, Jr., property owner at 503 N. Shields Street. Mr. Hahn stated "the purpose of this letter is to inform you that I approve of the construction of a matching 5 foot tall fence along the north lot line of 501 N. Shields Street." Barnes stated that the applicant is requesting to construct a matching 5 foot fence along the north property line. Shields is elevated at that location. The code allows fencing in the line -of -sight triangle to be either a 42 inch split rail with 12 inches between the horizontal members or a 32 inch high solid fence. Applicant's Participation: Leah Bishop, 501 N. Shields. Bishop stated that Barnes would show the Power Point photos that couldn't be loaded at the last ZBA hearing. The applicant cited concerns about traffic volume, safety, lack of traffic control, traffic noise, exhaust fumes, and heat as reasons for deciding to build the fence. The fence has been an effective buffer against the noise, fumes and heat and a fence half that high would not serve those purposes. The applicant did offer to compromise by either lowering the corner of the fence in the fine -of -sight triangle or setting the fence back. Bishop also exhibited photos of other fences in her neighborhood that she felt violated the fence code height limitations. Shands asked the applicant why she was requesting the variance. Bishop replied that a city inspector saw the fence, and she subsequently received a letter from the city. The applicant responded that she wasn't aware of the line -of -sight triangle when she constructed the fence. Hall asked the applicant what she would be willing to compromise. Bishop stated she was willing to either lower the fencing at the south corner or move that fencing. ZBA April 10, 2003— Page 3 Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Hall stated his choice would be to move the fence back inside the site line versus chopping it up. Then, the Board would only have to deal with the 4' height variance. Bello suggested that the height variance be allowed, but the applicant be asked to move the fence outside of the boundaries of the line -of -sight triangle. He felt that change would ensure safety at the intersection. McBride asked the applicant if she would prefer to lower the fence or keep it at its height and move it back behind the line -of -sight triangle. The applicant responded that decision would have to be made at a later time. She stated she felt it was a hardship to have to move it back and reiterated that several houses within two blocks of hers did not have fences that meet code and nothing has been done about them. Shands stated he had driven to the location twice, and it is difficult to see to the north. He had to pull his vehicle so the front wheels were on the concrete pan to see if it was clear to pull out, and stated the fence needed to be lowered or moved to be safe. Barnes explained a code change that occurred about a year and a half ago. Previously, code stated that no portion of the fence could be within 75 feet of the center of the intersection. The line -of -sight triangle is now used. It is possible that some of the fences in that area were constructed using the 75 foot rule. If the board wants to use the 75 feet rule, Barnes offered to review the plat with the applicant after the meeting. Any fence within a radius of 75 feet from the centerline of Sycamore and the centerline of Shields would be limited to either the 32 inch solid fence or the 42 inch split rail. Bello suggested that the fence to the north side of the sidewalk could remain and that revisions could be made to the fence on the south side of the site. The applicant was amendable to that suggestion. McBride made a motion to approve appeal 2605 with the following conditions: The granting of the two variances for height and sight distance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the equal to or better than justification, the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to construct a fence which is visually interesting and which avoids creating a "tunnel" effect. The proposal as submitted and as amended will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because it provides for the aesthetics which are required by the code. Furthermore, we are allowing a portion of this fence to be located where it is, and allowing the five foot height because the aesthetic appeal is equal to or better than what is required. Specifically, an allowance will be made for the fence to be higher than code allows, but the portion where the sight line intersects the post at the south end of the lot going north four sections of the fence to the sidewalk will have to be removed. That portion of the fence will be moved back but allowed to be at the existing height that it is now with the lattice work at the top as indicated in the photographs. Furthermore, the portion of the fence parallel to Shields north of the sidewalk will remain as is but no further fences shall impede that site line. The proposed fence on the north side of the property, perpendicular to Shields would be allowed to be 5 feet tall provided it is outside the line -of -sight triangle. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: Shands ZBA April 10, 2003— Page 4 4. APPEAL NO. 2607 - APPROVED Address: 2519 W. Lake Street Petitioner: Derald Rice Zone: RL Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Background: The variance will reduce the required setback from the rear lot line from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow an 18' x 24' garage addition to be constructed onto the back side of the existing attached garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. This particular lot backs up to a parcel of land that is about 2'/z acres in size. The applicant is requesting to reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 11 feet. It would be very difficult for the applicant to expand the garage to the front of the house and he is therefore proposing an expansion to the rear of the garage. The shed would be removed. Applicant's Presentation: Derald Rice, 2519 W. Lake Street. Rice stated that if he would build at the front of the property, only 2' would be gained. By building at the back, he can add 15 feet and stay within the code and the additional 3 to 4 feet would seem to be inconsequential. Currently, a privacy fence is being constructed. Rice stated that the addition will not be noticeable from the back when the addition is completed. Hall asked about the length of the shed that would be removed. Rice stated that it is 12 feet long. Bello asked if Rice had spoken with the neighbors. Rice replied that the neighbor to the south is attending the hearing today. McBride asked what needed to go into the garage that would be 4 feet longer than what the code allowed. Rice responded that he considered vehicle size, walk - around space and tool storage when he designed the space so that it would not be necessary to erect another shed. Audience Participation: Bill James, 2516 W. Prospect. James owns the adjacent property backing up to the subject property. James owns approximately 2 'h acres and the space next to Rice is just open space with pine trees. He stated he is in favor of the proposed project. Board Discussion: Hall stated that it is his opinion that it meets the intent of the code. Dickson stated there is minimal visual height impact. Bello stated that it is inconsequential, especially given the large space behind it. Bello made a motion to approve appeal 2607 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to provide adequate privacy, light and ventilation. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because the proximity of the new addition to the property to the south is equal to or better than what the code would need because they have large open space to the south. Therefore, there is plenty of separation between the ZBA April 10, 2008—Page 5 structures. Additionally, the side setback to the west is 4 feet greater than the standard setback that would be required. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO Address: Petitioner: Zone: Section: 2608 — APPROVED 2614 S. Timberline Joe Koslosky NC 3.8.7(E)(14) Background: The variance will increase the sign allowance for this building from 270 square feet to 431.25 square feet. This multi -tenant building was constructed with each tenant space having two store fronts, one facing Illinois Drive to the east, and the other store front facing the parking lot on the west side of the building. The variance is requested in order to allow every tenant the ability to display signage on each of their two store fronts. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: This is a unique situation in that the building does have store fronts on 2 sides of the building, and it is important for each public store entrance to have some signage. Given that you can only see half of the displayed signage at any one time, the Board may determine that the increase in allowance is inconsequential. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. The subject property is fronted by four streets: Drake to the north, Custer Drive to the south, Illinois Drive to the East, and Timberline to the west. The sign code allowance is based on the street abutting the property. The maximum sign code allowance for this property is 270 square feet. The applicant is requesting 431.25 square feet. There are two pedestrian entrances to this building. Hall asked if the sign code makes any allowance for two entrances from different locations. Barnes responded that it did not, and the applicant's only option is to split their one-sided allotment. Applicant's Participation: Joe Koslosky, 5105 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, Colorado. Koslosky explained that the two-sided building was required by the city, was not proposed by the developer, and is an expensive construction. They were not aware of the sign code limitations until after the construction was completed. They now have a vacant space and no signage available. Audience Participation: Brad Karpal, 1342 Walnut Street, Windsor. Karpal is one of the owners of Mail N Copy at this commercial center. One of the draws when they acquired this space was the dual entrances. He feels if the signage is limited to one side of the building, it would adversely affect their businesses. Board Discussion: Shands stated the request was reasonable. Dickson agreed, and stated it caused a hardship for the tenant. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2608 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal as follows: it is unique and unusual to see two equal entries in a ZBA April 10, 2008— Page 6 business. The application of the sign code with its limited square footage allowance for one of those entry sides creates a hardship for the businesses. Because of the foregoing unique conditions, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant/owner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant/owner. The unique conditions coupled with the strict application of the standards sought to be varied result in the practical difficulties or hardship for the store owners because signage needs to exist for each of the store fronts on the two different sides of the building. Hail seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 6. APPEAL NO. 2609 —APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 509 E. Plum Street Petitioner: Michael Bowie and Elaine Roberts Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4) and 4.8(D)(5) Background: The variance will allow the existing detached garage to be removed and replaced with an attached garage and bedroom. Specifically, the variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the alley from 5 feet to 4 feet 1 inch, reduce the required rear setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 3 feet (the existing home is already at a 7' 9" setback from the rear) and increase the allowed floor area in the rear half of the lot from 785 square feet to 1280 square feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: This is another old town lot which was split off from the original lot years ago. As a result, the lot is extremely shallow, and virtually any additional floor space will require a variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. This lot was split into three different parcels years ago. The proposal includes the removal of the existing detached garage and addition of a garage and living space, which would come within 3 feet of the rear property line. Applicant's Participation: Elaine Roberts, 509 East Plum. Roberts is a co-owner of the property. The new living space will be a personal office space and weaving studio. They considered several other options for the addition, but this one worked best. If the addition were moved 3 feet to the north, the foundation would be over the sewer line and the power line. They have discussed the proposed plans with all of the neighbors, and there are no objections. Hall asked if it would be possible to reduce the addition 2 feet so the 5 foot setback could be met. The applicant responded that the proposed addition is just over 12 feet so it would restrict the usability of the room. McBride asked why the addition is at the south end of the lot rather than the north. Roberts responded that would put the addition over the sewer and power lines. McBride suggested that a good excavator should be able to locate the sewer line so it wouldn't be a problem. The applicant said they are also trying to retain as much of the gardening area as possible, and that change would decrease that area by 3 feet. Audience Participation: None. ZBA April 10, 2008— Page 7 Board Discussion: Bello and Hall stated that they would be more comfortable with a 5 foot rather than a 3 foot setback. Bello stated he felt there were ways to design it with a 5 foot setback. Shands stated he didn't feel it has a negative effect on the neighbors. Considering that no one is opposing it, he felt the variance should be granted. Hall stated that there is a cost involved in moving the sewer and electric service but economics cannot be a factor in the board's decision. Dickson stated she was leaning toward the 5 foot setback to the south. Hall and Bello stated they felt it would work best to move the setback on the south to 5 feet. Hall asked if the applicant wanted the board to proceed if approval was based on requiring a 5 foot setback on the rear lot line. The applicant responded they would be disappointed, but she would want the board to proceed. Hall stated approval would not prevent the applicants from re -applying for another variance at a different time. Bello asked the applicant if she would prefer it be tabled so she could return at a different time. The applicant responded she would prefer to have it passed today. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2609 with conditions for the following reason: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal as follows: (1) the increase in the floor area in the rear of the lot is a hardship for the applicant due to the unique shallow shape of the lot. Because of the foregoing unique condition, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant/owner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant/owner. The unique conditions coupled with the strict application of the standards sought to be varied result in the practical difficulties or hardship because the floor area rule is for lots configured in the other direction, and it would be difficult for them to comply; (2) the second issue would be the variance request for the infringement on the east side of the lot into the alley creating a 4'1" setback is nominal and inconsequential due to the existing placement of neighboring structures in proximity to the alley. The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2; and (3) to place a condition that the setback of the dwelling be 5 feet from the south (rear) property line instead of the 3 feet requested by the applicant. Since there is an unusual lot configuration, it would be similar to it being a side yard lot line rather than a rear yard lot line and it would comply better than the proposed 3 foot distance from the south property line. The general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to provide adequate privacy, light and ventilation. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because the rear lot line was originally the side lot line of the platted lot, and the 5 foot setback from the south lot line will comply with the setback requirement from a side lot line. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved with conditions. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 6. APPEAL NO. 2610 —APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 724 — 728 Maple Street ZBA April 10, 2008— Pa.ge 8 Petitioner: Steve Whittal Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(2) Background: The variance will reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet for the homes to be built on these two lots in order to allow a covered front porch. The existing home at 728 Maple Street is already at a 12 foot setback from the front lot line. This home is proposed to be demolished and the applicant is proposing that the new home contain a front porch at a location that matches the existing one. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: A portion of the two lots is encumbered by the Arthur Ditch, which minimizes the size and location of the building footprint. Most of the homes in the neighborhood have front porches, and without a variance it will be difficult to include such an architectural element. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. This site was the subject of a variance request approximately two months ago. The applicant, faced with a building location constraint due to the presence of the Arthur Ditch, is requesting a variance of the front yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet so that porches may be added to the two new houses. Hall asked if the setback requirement is triggered when the porch roof is added. Barnes responded that was correct. The roof with the posts that extend to the ground necessitates the setback requirement. A suspended roof would not. The code allows open outside stairways, entrance hoods, terraces, canopies and balconies to project up to 5 feet into a required front yard setback. Applicant's Participation: Steve Whittal, Functional Forms and By Design Homes, 400 Whedbee Street. There are challenging building design issues on these lots because of the Arthur Ditch. The applicant believes this is an equal to or better than situation. Hall asked the applicant if the board would be hearing more variance requests on these properties. The applicant responded that the construction documents are almost complete, and there are no other issues with the sites. Board Discussion: After discussion, the board agreed the language would be that there would be no other variances on 724 — 728 Maple. Hall made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2610 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. This appeal is approved with the condition that no other variances will be granted on 724 and 728 Maple Street and both porches would remain open as drawn. The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. McBride seconded the motion. The motion was approved with conditions. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Bello left the meeting ZBA April 10, 2008— Page 9 6. APPEAL NO. 2611 —APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 125 3rd Street Petitioner: Theodora B'ey Zone: RL Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b) Background: The variance will reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 10' 3" in order to allow the construction of a covered front porch onto the existing home. The home is set back only 15.5', and the porch will extend 5.3' from the front of the home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Many of the homes in the neighborhood have a covered front porch, so the proposed construction will be compatible with the existing character. The front porches of many of the homes which have them are also not in compliance with the setback standard. Therefore, the variance is nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. The porch will enhance the appearance of the home and eliminate a problem with ice. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. Barnes referred the board members to the packet provided by the applicant that lists the addresses in the Buckingham neighborhood with porches that are either in or out of compliance. Applicant's Participation: Theodora B'ey, 125 3rd Street. B'ey stated she wanted to build the front porch for two reasons: first, she thinks it will look nice; and secondly, because the porch is east - facing, it freezes in the winter. It is her opinion it will fit with the neighborhood very well. Hall asked if it will be an open porch. The applicant replied it will be open. Shands asked if it will cover the concrete pad. The applicant responded that it will. McBride made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2611. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good considering the size of the porch, house and lot. The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The porch will aesthetically improve the neighborhood. This approval is conditioned upon the porch being open on three sides. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 10. Other Business: Barnes requested those board members who did not attend the live training session in March make arrangements with the City Clerk's office to check out the training DVD. This year, City Council will review the Zoning Board of Appeals. A questionnaire needs to be completed by the end of June. Barnes will email the questionnaire to each board member for review and completion at the conclusion of the May ZBA meeting. Mee—tin-gg adjourned at 11:00 a.m. rt�ttT Fiatl, Chairpers n Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator