Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/08/2009FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — January 8, 2009 8:30 a.m. II Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (416-2355) II 11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall II II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 8, 2009 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 Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride Jim Pisula EXCUSED ABSENCES: Ronald Daggett David Shards STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney Sue Houseal, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bello made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2008 meeting. Pisula seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: None Abstain: APPEAL NO. 2633 — Granted Address: 400 Jackson Avenue Petitioner: Joe Sullivan for Archer Homes, Inc. Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(5), 4.7(E)(3) Background: This appeal was tabled from the December 11, 2008 meeting in order to allow the applicant and the most directly affected neighbors the opportunity to more thoroughly discuss design options. Pursuant to those discussions, the applicant has revised the plans. ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 2 The variance will allow the rear 50% of the property to contain a Floor Area Ratio of .55 instead of the maximum .25 permitted (2,974 sq. ft. instead of 1342 sq. ft.) and will reduce the required rear yard setback along the east lot line from 15' to 5' in order to allow a 597 square foot one story, 19' wide two -car garage addition onto the east side of the existing home. Most of the existing home is already in the rear half of the lot (approximately 2377 sq. ft. of the existing 2476 sq. ft.). The front of the existing home will remain oriented to Jackson Avenue. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: A garage addition is proposed onto the east side of the existing house. Most of the existing home is already in the rear 50% of the lot (east). There is virtually no place on the lot where a garage can be constructed without the need for a variance. This proposal is the smallest of the 3 proposals and has the.least impact on the neighbors and on the existing trees. A request to allow a garage is a reasonable request since the other homes in the area have garages. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. He stated that he had attended the meeting with the applicant and the most directly affected neighbors. Barnes further stated he received an email from Dan Epstein & Judy Dorsey which said: "Judy and I and Jim Brokish met with Mr. Sullivan regarding his plans for 400 Jackson at our house in late December. Peter Barnes was also in attendance. Thank you, Peter, we very much appreciate your assistance in explaining some of the specific zoning requirements for this project. I understand that the project is under pending contract and consequently will likely change going forward. We also understand Mr. Sullivan's desire to have a workable alternative in the event this contract does not go through. So while our hopes are that the new owners will develop a more balanced and better planned house centered on the lot, we also understand the constraints placed on Mr. Sullivan in remodeling the existing property. The plans presented here with the Jackson address with no additional square footage on the north side and with a single story garage on the east appears to be the most reasonable comprise to this overly constrained problem. We appreciate the fact that the Magnolia trees are preserved. While we realize this requires a larger variance as compared with previous plans, insomuch as these plans minimize other significant impacts, we are not, opposed. We appreciate the board's time and attention to this project and their willingness to hear our views." Best regards, Dan Epstein & Judy Dorsey 1327 W. Magnolia Barnes said that as indicated in the letter and as we discussed at the December meeting, the December application was tabled in order to allow the neighbors and the applicant to meet with me in attendance to see if there was any sort of solution that seemed acceptable to everybody. As a result of that meeting, the applicant has presented what you have before you today, which maintains the Jackson address. In November it was coming as a Magnolia address, and now it is going to be oriented again toward Jackson Avenue. Part of the remodel includes a new enhanced west elevation which clearly defines it as the front of the house. Then the proposal is to add a one- story, two -car 19-ft. garage, which is a fairly narrow two -car garage onto the east of the existing property. Since Jackson Avenue is the front lot'line, the east lot line is the rear property line and that requires a 15-foot setback since there is no alley. If there were an alley, a 5-ft setback would be the minimum required. But since there is no alley, a 15-ft setback is needed; thus the variance request to reduce that 15-ft. rear setback requirement to 5 feet. The other part of the request asks for a variance on the amount of floor area allowed in the rear half of the lot. You will recall the November and December applications reoriented the house toward Magnolia and there was an additional structure to be constructed on the north with the garage in the approximate same location as you see it today, only with Magnolia street being the front, and there is no variance ZBA December 11, 2008—Page 3 required on the east lot line because that became a side lot line instead of the rear lot line. There was also concern that two of the existing trees would need to be removed with the Magnolia Street orientation as noted on what Mr. Epstein indicated and as you see on the plans, all of the trees will now be maintained. Applicant's Presentation: Joe Sullivan with Archer Homes, 4020 Bingham Hill Rd. Sullivan stated that after the December meeting, everyone came to agreement on the proposal and it seems to work out all the way around. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Hall stated that when he looked at this earlier, he was struck that there was compromise on all sides and to him this is the best iteration of the five. That the lot area meets the 50% rule and the fact that the lots were changed and done legally is an unusual circumstance. Now we have a house there that is mostly non -compliant. Dickson asked if the ordinance was adopted after the subdivision or not. Barnes answered that the ordinance was changed a few months before the lot line adjustment and that the staff can approve a lot line adjustment as long as it does not create a nonconformity. Once the ordinance was adopted, this already became nonconforming when you look at the original lot lines they were moving around. So the nonconformity was already created at the time of the ordinance change, not as a result of the lot line adjustment. Barnes replied that the problem is that by adjusting the lot lines, they made it more non- conforming. The wording in the ordinance does not say that you can do a lot line adjustment only if it doesn't create a nonconformity or increase the degree of nonconformity. We may contemplate a code change to deal with that in the future, but since it doesn't say you can't do anything that increases the degree of nonconformity, their lot line adjustment did not violate that code change. Hall stated that based on Barnes' clarification, it seems that the extra degree of nonconformity was fairly significant and we have gotten ourselves in an unusual circumstance. Concerning the rear lot line, it is effectively a side yard (neighbor's side yard), since it is a corner lot. The neighbor most affected is the neighbor that is on the rear lot line and who is now in support of this proposal. Dickson asked if the board is moving toward equal to or better than. Bello said he mostly supports nominal or inconsequential. It's not nominal in terms of the square footage but it is inconsequential in terms of the impact to the neighbors. Pisula stated that at the same time it's equal to or better than in terms that it's minimizing the impact on the neighborhood since the streetscape would be maintained pretty much the same as it is right now. Hall agreed. McBride stated that this is certainly an unusual situation and was still confused about how we got here. Regardless of what the ordinance says, this is best design for this lot. He said he didn't think that the 50% lot rule should apply to a situation like this because it just isn't what it was intended for. Since it cannot be approved by saying the ordinance does not apply, we need to find one of our three standard arguments to say that this is the right design for this lot. Bello said that considering the amount of open space this house has compared to the average house in old town that the community is getting a great tradeoff by keeping this open space in front of the house. I guess whenever we create an ordinance, there are winners and losers, and this lot is a loser, but I'm still in favor of this proposal. And I would say it's equal to or better than a ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 4 situation where it would comply. It started out being non -conforming and the amount of non- conformity is actually no greater now than it was in the beginning, especially if Mr. Epstein is happy with this. McBride inquired as to whether there is an element of hardship here considering that the lot line adjustments that created this situation were all legally done and the property owner was put in a situation where they really can't do anything that makes sense for the property without needing a variance. We don't want to run into this too much; it was done after the ordinance but as Barnes says we can't create a nonconformity. Dickson stated that it already exists. Barnes replied that it became nonconforming when the ordinance was adopted, even before the lot lines we're adjusted. Adjustment of the lot lines increased the degree of non -conformity but the ordinance didn't say you couldn't do that. The lot line adjustment was allowed to happen and by allowing it to happen, it ended up increasing the degree of non -conformity on this property. Hall asked Barnes if he thought,this is an unusual circumstance. Barnes replied that it is unusual with regard to a lot line adjustment. You've already dealt with these rear half lot variances in the past. Those nonconformities weren't increased by any act. This is unusual because they were allowed to do this lot line adjustment which resulted in this extra nonconformity. You won't find this happening too often where people have enough lot area.between different adjacent lots to be able to reconfigure things. So I think it's safe to say that it's unusual. Hall asked if there was a single lot that contained all 3 buildings before the lot line adjustment. Barnes replied that when you go to the County tax records, the parcel # legal description was Lots A, B & C. Those originally plotted lot lines were still there, so the original parcel that this house sat on was 3 lots. And it was those 3 lot lines of those 3 original lots that they were adjusting. Hall stated that maybe this is a hardship. It's so unique; the ordinance created a non -conformity. Bello said he thinks the equal to or better than, from the standpoint of what they are able to do by keeping the trees, bigger front yards, not impacting the neighbors, and view planes. To me that is an equal or better situation. Barnes replied that the problem with the equal to or better than option is that it has to be equal to or better than a plan that complies with the code. Hall So here's what I've got: It's an unusual circumstance with the lot line adjustment creating more nonconformity and then it's equal to or better than in terms of the rear lot setback, because as Michael was saying, you could potentially deal with an address change moving that to a side yard, if the Board approved the rear lot & putting a garage on the west side at that point (as we discussed last month) and I don't know that that's moving in a better direction. Bello asked Barnes if from his standpoint, the fact that this non -compliant plan would take away some trees, impacting the front yard setback. This plan is equal to or better than those solutions. Doesn't that support that argument? Barnes replied he doesn't think so. Bello stated that's why it has to be a hardship because the hardship was created when the ordinance was created, and that clearly is a hardship as opposed to equal to or better than; there's no way we're going to say it's equal to or better than regardless of the fact that it shouldn't apply to this lot but it does, so the hardship was created when the ordinance was created. And that to me is the essence of why this should be approved. Pisula said it's still easier to justify a hardship created by the ordinance before any lot line was done and the increase was nominal and inconsequential in terms of the change of the lot lines. He doesn't know if the board can use both of those, but he thinks they should approve it as a hardship ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 5 created by an unusual situation with the lot line adjustments. The house was in nonconformity before the lot line adjustment, and it's still in noncompliance. He stated he did not want to debate the level of nonconformity because it's a hardship in both cases. It was a hardship before the lot line adjustment was done and it's a hardship now. Pisula said he doesn't see how that opens the floodgates for other properties necessarily because whenever we approve one of these, it's always in the context of the particular lot. So if we had another project just like this where it's already in nonconformance 50%, we're going to make it nonconforming by 70%, I'm going to say that the house was created originally nonconforming so the hardship was created by the new ordinance. Barnes stated he doesn't think we can ever use the creation of an ordinance as a hardship because every time we change the code, then someone comes in and says because the property was rezoned or the code changed, that created a hardship on their property. Barnes thinks maybe the board is going to have to find that the general purpose of the standard for the rear half of the lot was for the typical lot that you find downtown that's maybe 40 or 50 ft. wide and 190 ft deep that's an alley. The intent of the code was to limit the amount of building coverage that occurs in those typical deep lots. And that's the board's finding in the past on some of these is that this promotes the purpose of the standard because the standard doesn't really apply here: this is a different size lot; it's not as deep but you can't say that you're going to grant a variance because the code change created a hardship and therefore they need a variance. Maybe you could go back to the equal to or better than which promotes the purpose of the standard and say that there is a place where they can put a garage without a variance and this is better than that. I can see where the hardship is going; it makes sense but on the other hand we have to be careful about the precedent that you're setting on stating that. (Ordinance creating a hardship) Hall said that anything done with this current house needs a variance and this seems to be one of the best scenarios we've seen given that reality. You have to get a variance to do anything with the property, and this seems like the best choice. Barnes replied that with the equal to or better than, you'd have to state that this satisfies the purpose of the standard, which is limiting the amount of coverage in the rear half equally well as tearing everything down and starting all over again. Hall stated that to get that 10 ft. garage setback from the front of the house you'd have to build on to the north side to get your setback. Barnes replied that ends up removing the trees. Hall said that's where he goes to; he almost sees it as two different pieces. There's an unusual piece with the floor area ratio 50% ratio and there's the side yard/rear yard piece, which for the side yard 5 ft would be fine. Because it's the rear yard in this scenario, it's not ok. With everything we've talked about, that makes it equal to or better than the other options. Dwight made a motion that Appeal No. 2633 be approved. First, granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public good and he used two different reasons for the two different pieces, the 50% rule and the rear yard setback. In terms of the 50% rule, there is an unusual circumstance in that the 3 lots were readjusted creating a significant larger degree of nonconformity and the plan as presented doesn't make that significantly worse. The rear 50% rule was created for a different shaped lot where the house is sitting in the front and we didn't want a lot of building on the back of the lot. This doesn't really fit that scenario. Second piece is the rear lot line which is supposed to be 15 ft and is proposed at 5 ft which is what a side yard requirement would be. The neighbor to the east, who is the most affected by this adjustment, is in support of this plan. Knowing that there could be other options, they view this as the best option and better than other options that the property owner could potentially do. It's equal to or better than because of that. ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 6 Bello seconded the motion. There was board discussion about minimizing site alteration specifically so that it leaves all the trees in place and it maintains the orientation of the front of house toward Jackson. Hall said he thinks the orientation is a requirement based on the plan, and one of the reasons they're supporting it is that it's preserving mature landscape. Barnes replied that it's indicated in the narrative that we have and on the plans so if they came in and change anything later on, that would be require a new variance, unless of course the trees died from natural causes. Dwight: Then we'll let the motion stand. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: None 4. Appeal No. 2634 — Granted with conditions. Address: 421 S. Grant Ave. Petitioner: Wesley Baumgartner Zoning District: NCM Section: 4.8(d)(5) Background: The variance will increase the maximum floor area ratio allowed in the rear half of the lot from .33 to .44 to allow the existing 1200 square foot home located in the rear half of the lot to be increased in size to 2085 sq. ft. The existing one-story house will be put on a new foundation and a1115 sq. ft. 2nd story will be added. The existing one -car garage currently encroaches into the required 5' side setback. The remodel will also include replacing the existing garage with a new attached garage which will comply with the required 5' side setback requirement by moving it over about 4 feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing house'is an alley house which is currently located in the rear half of the lot. There are no other buildings in front of the house. To comply with the code, the home would have to be moved to the front half of the lot. Staff Comments: The Board has heard a number of rear lot floor area variance requests. However, this is the first one which deals with a lot on which the existing home was constructed in the rear half of an originally platted lot. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. He said the only way they can get a building of the size they want would be to tear it down and build a new house in the front. Hall inquired about the house being on a new foundation and were they actually going to lift the house up and put a new foundation underneath it. A comment was made that theoretically the house could be put in the front of the lot. Barnes replied that's what is proposed. He has discussed this with the applicant who will talk about that. Applicant's Presentation: Wesley Baumgartner, 421 S Grant. Baumgartner stated that he lives in this house. He went to the City and found out what his setbacks were. He referred to the slides. He designed it so that there would be the 5 ft and would fit within the setback. It fits within the setback to the alley. If he has to put the house in the front, he'll be looking right at the giant gable being constructed on the house next door that is larger than the normal setback would allow for. And that would be my view from my master bedroom. I designed it to have the garage attached. If he moved the house to the front he would want to have a house with a detached garage in the back. Because of the square footage 2 to 1 ratio and 33% ZBA December 11, 2008—Page 7 of the back half, he calculated he could put a 791 sq. ft. garage with a 791 sq. ft. loft above it for a total of 1,583 sq. ft. which would be under the 1/3 of this back half ratio, and then still build a 3,100 sq. ft. house in front of it without a variance. He thinks that would be much more of an eyesore than what he's proposing. He bought the house after the zoning was made and can't actually argue with that. The greatest hardship he would have would be putting the whole building in the landfill and paying an engineer to design a new one. Barnes said the comment the applicant made about being able to build a 1500 sq. ft. structure in the back isn't quite correct, because in this zone the maximum size of a detached accessory building can't exceed 600 sq. ft. and that would include both floors. So 600 sq. ft. would be the maximum size you could build in the back half if the house were in the front. Even though you could theoretically have 1500 sq. ft to meet that 1/3 floor area ratio in the rear half, with an accessory building you really couldn't build one that big. Hall stated that there was a question about the new foundation, and if there was anything with the current structure that's would be preserved other than the foundation. Baumgartner replied that everything but the garage and the roof and the failing concrete foundation. The main portion of the house actually has two additions on it from when it was built in 1930 and all that is going to be saved. Hall asked the applicant if he's going to lift the house up, put a new foundation and set it back down. The applicant answered yes. Hall continued and asked if he would then build on top of that. Baumgartner said that's the proposal. There are actually 3 approximately 70-ft tall evergreen trees, and my goal is to save all three. I'd probably have to do some pruning into the rear -most tree. If I built in front I'd probably take the front one down. Hall clarified that the footprint is going to be essentially the same other than the garage will be compliant by moving it a little bit. The applicant replied that was correct. The addition in front used to be a porch and it came out about six ft. and the addition to the side goes out about 12 ft. so the 6x12 ft. corner would be filled in and it would be made into a rectangle. It's the same in the back, so the footprint is going to go out another 6 ft. by 3 ft. Then the garage would be pushed into the house making that footprint of the garage smaller on the setback side. McBride asked if the neighbors are aware of the addition plans. The applicant replied after visiting with neighbors in the 150-ft. radius, there were no objections. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: McBride stated that the code created a hardship. Barnes calls it a constraint, but it cannot be called hardship since that's part of the wording of one of the justifications. He said there ought to be a way to approve this without to struggling to find a justification as termed in the 3 justifications. This demonstrates to him that if he lived in that neighborhood on one side or the other of this lot, he would really like having open space to the side. He said the board should approve this with a condition that does not allow any further addition to the lot and justifying it in a way that it's equal to or better than a house built on the front of the lot. If the house were moved to the front, it probably would not be preferable to the neighbor. So I would support on an equal to or better than with a limitation to additional square footage being built in the front, kind of a reverse ordinance. Hall stated he was thinking about that potentiality too and if they were to approve this, it doesn't seem like there's any way he could build on the front without another variance because that's ZBA December 11, 2008—Page 8 100% noncompliant. He said that there would have to be a variance and asked Barnes to confirm that. Barnes asked if Hall was talking about adding on to the front of the building. Hall replied yes. Barnes stated that the applicant could build something in the front, for example, a large storage building since he would be OK in the overall lot area floor area ratio; with this he'd still be able to build about 2700 sq. ft. of additional building in the front. Hall stated that there aren't any rules in the NCM about sheds and garages being behind the house. Barnes replied that the garage has to be ten feet set back further than the front of the house, but a storage shed does not, so there's the potential to build a 600 sq. ft. storage building in the front without a variance because it wouldn't be impacting the rear lot floor area ratio and it would still be under the maximum lot floor area ratio. McBride asked if theoretically someone could put a house on the front and a house in the rear. Barnes replied no; to have two houses on one lot in this zone 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area would be required and there's only 9,500 sq. ft. There's not a potential to build another house in the front unless this was converted to something else. McBride asked if it could be a non -live-in structure. Barnes answered yes. McBride said the applicant is choosing not to move the house to the front, and from that standpoint the board is giving a variance to a non -compliant situation. He further stated the applicant should not take advantage of that and build something in the front that distracts from the value of the house being in the back., Assistant City Attorrney Daggett reminded that if it's going to use the equal to or better standard, they need to consider the general purpose of the rear floor area ratio restriction and evaluate whether the proposed construction basically meets the purposes of that standard equal to or better than. She mentioned it because she hadn't heard much discussion about that particular aspect, and that would be key for the equal to or better than finding. Hall asked Barnes if the purpose of that standard was to preserve the character of mature neighborhoods. Barnes replied that the purpose of the standard was to limit the amount of construction in the rear portion of the lot. The intent was, if the house were in the front, to keep owners from overbuilding the back with accessory buildings. The purpose of the standard was to limit the amount of the floor area in the back part of the lot. Barnes further stated that In 2004 there were a number of changes to the code in the NCL, NCM and NCB zones, and standards in those 3 zones seemed to have been changed every 2 or 3 years because it's the Old Town neighborhood property owners that are very concerned about what other people are doing with redeveloping their property or making improvements to their property. They want to preserve the old town character of those properties where historically the houses were mainly in the front portions so there was only one building in the back. What we started to see were people building large buildings in the back, 1200 sq. ft, or maybe they already had a 700 or 800 sq. ft. garage, then built another garage or a big storage shed. So people were very concerned about how these properties were developing and redeveloping. One proposal that came up was an ordinance to limit the potential of building area in the back to address those concerns that property owners in that area had. Again, I'm not saying that the intent was to take into account every situation out there. Obviously this is a different situation. There's only a handful of lots in these old town areas that have the house in the back and nothing in the front, so this is reversed. Bello asked Barnes to tell him again why this can't be considered a hardship when in fact it is a hardship; but we can't define it as a hardship. Barnes answered that this one might possibly ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 9 qualify as a hardship because of the unique situation of the property. The purpose of a variance is to try and get some equality; this is what people can do without a variance, and a fair variance would be to allow this applicant to be able to do what other people can do without a variance. So if this house was in the front, he could do his addition, meet the setbacks based on where his house is located now, he wouldn't violate any lot area floor area ratios; he'd meet all the setbacks. Other people who have houses in the front can build a second floor without variances. You see a lot of variance requests on those, like the house next door where he was doing the second floor and needed a side yard setback based on the height of that wall. But we issue many permits that the board never sees for people that do additions to the houses in the front of the lot that don't need variances. And this person owns a house that happens to be in the rear portion of the lot. But he's limited; he can't do what other people can do unless you grant him a variance solely because of the unique situation in that his house is on the back portion. So when you think about it that way, then that might be a hardship because of the unique circumstance and he didn't do anything to create the hardship; the house was built there in the 30's. Hall said he was trying to follow the logic of the hardship and how the board could make it work. McBride stated that to him this is not a detriment to the public good and will make a motion unless there's further discussion that needs to happen. Hall said it was the justification that he's looking for. Baumgartner said it was his understanding that the goal of the rule I'm asking a variance for was effectively not to overbuild the lot. McBride moved that the variance be approved because of the hardship of the house being built in the rear half of the lot and that it is not detrimental to the public good, with the restriction that the open space in front be preserved, meaning that no further permit -required buildings be built on the property. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, McBride, Pisula, Bello, Hall Nays: None Abstain 5. Appeal 2635 -Granted Address: 280 Circle Dr. Petitioner: Randy Shortridge Zoning NCL Section: 4.7(d)(5) Background: The variance will increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio allowed in the rear half of the lot from .25 to .31. Specifically, the variance will allow 1754 square feet of floor area instead of the allowed 1400 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow a proposed 2 story addition and a one-story attached garage. Currently, 641 square feet of the existing home is in the rear half of the lot. The proposed addition will result in 1754 square feet in the rear half. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addition, the house is built on a slab - on -grade, meaning there's no basement or crawl space. Therefore, storage space is limited and the proposed two -car garage is over -sized in order to provide some needed storage space. ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 10 Staff Comments: The intent of the code is to limit the amount of building area in the rear portion of typical old town lots which are narrow and deep. The shape and dimensions of this lot more closely resemble the lots found in the RL zone, which does not have a rear lot floor area ratio regulation. Old town lots in the NCL, NCM, and NCB zones are typically between 150' and 190' deep. This particular lot is 107' deep, so it is shallow in comparison to the more standard old town lots. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. He noted that this is a1950 style property -- very wide and shallower and that the ordinance application is questionable. Hall asked what justification there is for the requested variance. Barnes replied hardship based on shallowness of lot. Hall asked if the intent of the code was written for this type of lot. Barnes explained that this property is located on Circle Dr which is just to the north side of Prospect at the intersection of Prospect and Stover. Stover Street is the zoning district line. The properties to the west of Stover are NCL and the properties to the east of Stover are_RL, low density residential. This is the Circle Dr. neighborhood where you can see that the lots are not your typical old town NCL zoned lots, 50 ft wide, 190 ft deep. This particular property is 107 ft deep and 104 ft. wide. It's more of your typical 1950's subdivision layout which changed. Instead of building narrow . houses that went deep on the lot, construction and house design became wider and shallower and the lots therefore became wider and shallower. That doesn't mean that the house floor area in the back portion is nonconforming. It certainly isn't for this particular situation because they would be allowed to have 1400 sq. ft. in the rear half and they have currently about 641 sq. ft; therefore they could build some addition in the rear half without the need for a variance. There are other lots like this one in the block where you can see that virtually the whole house again is in the rear half of the lot. These slides illustrate that this is one of those subdivisions that the code was not really intended to apply to. Again that code was intended to deal with your typical old town lot. The proposal for this property is to construct a second story addition, convert the garage into living space, and build a new attached garage to the rear of the property accessed off of the alley. The area is predominantly single -story homes. This would be one of the few two-story homes. It is a wide lot as you can see with large side yard setbacks on the north and south. Hall asked Barnes if there is a code reason significant to the fact there aren't many two-story homes in this neighborhood, or is that just the way the houses were built and have remained. Barnes replied it's typical when houses were constructed in the 50's and early 60's that they were predominantly single -story. House designs changed later. When these houses were constructed, that was the type of construction that was in vogue at the time. Hall asked if the applicant were to push this forward on the lot, the 2nd floor is a non -issue. Barnes replied yes. Hall then stated he had a more open-ended question for anybody. When there is a variance request that the code wasn't written to specifically deal with, what's the justification for a variance on that? Barnes said the one thing the board could do is look at is when you do the equal to or better than, that's the one standard that you have to grant variances where it says it's equal to or better than the standard which complies with the purpose of the intent of the regulation. It could be nominal or inconsequential. They could build a 2"d floor over the portion of the house that's in the front; they could build a one-story addition on the front because there's plenty of room. We require a 24-ft. front setback and the existing building is set back over 30 ft, I believe, so they could come out to the front or they could come out to the sides, and the unique situation is that the shallowness of the lot, 107 ft vs. 150 to 190 ft. lot, limits where your buildable area is. Does that answer the question? Hall said he understands the intent of the code was not written for this situation; it happens to catch this situation. Barnes agreed. As he mentioned on a couple of other variances, and again in his written comments, the intent of the code is to limit the amount of building in the rear portion of ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 11 typical old town lots, which are narrow and deep, and this isn't the type of lot that we had in mind or the type of neighborhood actually where we thought it would be prudent to have that code standard. Hall stated that the board can't say the code wasn't written for this piece of property because it obviously did catch it, but that's what staff is telling us is the case in terms of our justification to grant a variance. Barnes replied that Hall was right; the code is what it is and it applies to all properties in this zone. However, this is a subdivision that is not a usual one. We could have had a code that says the rear lot floor area ratio applies to all properties in the NCL zone except the lots on Circle Dr. but that was not done. Assistant City Attorney Daggett stated that in listening to the discussion, she is hearing a concern about the configuration of this lot and the shallowness of the lot and how the rear floor area requirement be a fact of applying that requirement to this shape of a lot, which sounds to me like a discussion of an exceptional hardship in this situation because of the shallowness of the lot. Applicant Presentation: Randy Shortridge, 280 Circle Dr. Shortridge referred to the letter he submitted that morning and said the board pretty well covered it in its preliminary discussion. He noted a couple of things about the required setback at the front yard, which is 15 ft and the prevailing and existing setback is approximately 31 ft. Part of his goal in creating the addition was to respect that prevailing setback up and down the street character. And secondly, he wanted to minimize the footprint of the house rather than sprawl out across the yard, keeping it as small as possible. That applies also to impervious surfaces like a driveway; we're going to be removing the existing driveway in the front and turning that back into permeable surface. He wants to keep the driveway in the backyard as minimal as possible to maintain that permeability. , Heather Lotimpera, 280 Circle Dr. Lotimera stated that she and her boys visited all of their neighbors over the last couple of weeks. They found everyone within the 150 ft. radius except 3, one of whom is not a resident of Fort Collins. She brought copies of the neighbors' signatures of approval which she gave to Barnes. She said the neighbors were shown the plans, the elevations and the proposed variance and how that would affect the neighborhood. No one objected to the proposal. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Hall stated that the board could make a case for a hardship and that the code was written for a specific shaped lot and this is shallower. McBride stated that as he reads the hardship reason, sounds like it applies. Hall asked if he would read that into a motion. McBride made a motion that Appeal #2635 be approved for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and under the hardship reasoning, there are exceptional physical conditions and/or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to this property. The physical conditions are that the dimensions and configuration of this lot are wide in width and narrow in depth. The solution to the addition is in keeping with the ordinances to limit the amount of structure on a lot and the context of this particular house and this particular addition is acceptable. Hall added that the board say the code was written generally for a long, narrow lot and as this is pretty much a square lot, it's a bit of a hardship to make that code work with this lot shape. Pisula seconded the motion. ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 12 Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: None Abstain: 6. Appeal 2636 — Granted with conditions Address: 3301 S. College Ave. Petitioner: Terry Palmos Zoning District: C Section: 3.8.7(G)(1) Background: The variance will allow the existing nonconforming. Crystal Gardens/Red Lobster monument sign to be at a zero setback from the lot line instead of the required 15', at an overall height of 12' at the zero setback instead of the 7' maximum allowed and at a size of 110 square feet per side instead of the maximum 45 square feet per side allowed at a zero setback. The existing sign is one of the many signs which needs to be brought into compliance by February 25, 2009. The proposal is to remodel the existing sign structure by lowering the overall height from 16' to 12' and keep it at its current location and size, thus allowing a portion of the brick base to be reused. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The sign is located approximately 50' from College Avenue, therefore a large setback already exists. The sign is on the Red Lobster property but serves to advertise the shopping center on the lot to the west of Red Lobster as well. A 45 square foot per face sign, located 50' from College Avenue would not be large enough to be read from the street when multiple tenants need to have identification on the sign. The existing landscaping also adds to the lack of visibility Staff Comments: The maximum size allowed for any type of freestanding sign is 90 square feet per side, regardless of distance from the property line or street. The request is to allow the existing 110 square foot per face sign to be re -used at its current location, but lowered by 4 feet. It is staff's opinion that a variance should never be granted to allow a sign to exceed the maximum size of 90 square foot per face allowed by the Code. Therefore it is recommended that the Board deny the request to the part of the variance asking to keep the existing 110 square foot size. The applicant is proposing to lower the overall height of the sign by reducing the height of the existing brick base from 5' to 1'. If the board requires the sign face to be reduced in size from its current 110 square feet, it is suggested that the base be reduced in height as proposed and any reduction in the size of the sign face be made to the height of the sign, rather than the width. This will result in the overall height being reduced more than the 4' which is being proposed. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides pertaining to the application. He explained that the Crystal Garden shopping center goes back to McClelland and is accessed off of McClelland or College Ave. through the Red Lobster property, so it actually functions as one development where customers and employees of both buildings are using the parking lot and driving through the property. The sign is at a zero setback from the line, but you can see from the travel lane at College Ave, it's a considerable setback from the College Ave right-of-way. The existing sign advertises the Red Lobster restaurant on the lower portion. The upper portion advertises Crystal Gardens and then there are panels for various tenants that occupy the shopping center. The only change proposed by the applicant is lowering the sign by 4 ft. Barnes continued by explaining the sign code regulates signs with regard to size, location and height, and with regard to free standing and monument signs (this is considered a monument sign) ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 13 the code at a zero setback limits the overall height of the structure to 7 ft, and the square footage of the sign face to 45 sq. ft per side. As mentioned earlier, the only proposed change with this application is to reduce the overall height to 12 ft. A variance would still be required since the maximum height allowed at a zero setback is 7 ft. The existing 110 sq foot per face sign is proposed to remain and the setback be at zero feet. So those are the issues; the sign is going to be too tall and too large at that setback. The maximum size allowed for monument sign or free- standing sign is 90 sq. ft. per side no matter how far it's set back from the property line, and the request here is to allow 110 sq. ft. sign. As mentioned in the description of the variance, this is one of the signs that should be brought into compliance by February 25, 2009. Dickson asked if the Crystal Gardens center has any frontage on College Avenue and if.the portion of the sign that represents Crystal gardens is an off -premise sign. Barnes replied that it's all part of the same development so anything within that development can advertise on any sign within that development. Dickson said since there's the one entrance on College, it's permitted to have one free-standing or ground sign along College, and no more. Barnes replied that one free-standing sign per property per street frontage is permitted. Hall asked Barnes where the 45 sq. ft. comes from. Barnes replied at a zero setback the maximum size allowed for a monument sign s 45 sq, ft, per side. As you move the sign further back, you can increase the height and the size of the sign up to a maximum height of 12 ft, which is what is proposed at the existing setback and to a maximum of 90 sq. ft. So the further back it goes, the larger and taller the sign can be. At this existing setback it's limited to 45 sq. ft. per side and 7 ft. overall height. Hall asked Barnes how far back does the sign have to be to get to 90 sq. ft. Barnes replied it has to bel5 feet from the property line. At a 15-foot setback, the 12-foot height and the 90 sq. ft. per side would be allowed. Hall asked Barnes to verify that the sign is more than 15 feet from College. Barnes replied that it is. Applicant's Presentation: Terry Palmos, 3307 S College Palmos stated he would like to comment and make a few points with respect to the revised sign code, which in general he is in agreement with. He thinks that revising the monument signs up and down College is a good idea and he's glad the City passed it since it will improve the overall visual effect of College going both north and south. However, with respect to the new code and how it impacts his situation, it would require us to reduce the existing sign by more than half, and if we did that, there wouldn't be enough room to put the individual names of the businesses that are in the shopping center. Most of those businesses (about a dozen of them) are local mom & pop shops, local residents, people doing their best in tough times right now, and they've all voiced to me many times how important it is to them to have exposure to College Ave. and be able to capture some of the people driving up and down. The shopping center and the businesses in there are already at a little bit of a disadvantage. They're behind the frontage road and they're hidden behind the Red Lobster. There's also a waterway there that sets them even further back so that the physical situation is a little bit unique compared to some of the other shopping centers that are up and down College. Ave. It is our contention that by taking the existing sign and lowering it to the ground level, I think it accomplishes the goal of the ordinance which I believe is to reduce the impact of the monument signs on College, and still allow for each tenant to have their name out there and capture that exposure. He said it was very well pointed out by Mr. Barnes that the effective setback with respect to College is really 50 feet, even though the sign is right up against the property line. Effectively, in the physical existence of it, the sign is really 50 feet from College, and ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 14 he thinks it is the intent of the spirit of the ordinance. Therefore, he said the proposal would be equal to the intent of the new revised ordinance. What is being proposed with respect to reducing the size of the sign, bringing it down to ground level, and I think we're a little bit flexible with the actual square footage, the specific square footage accomplishes the goal of the ordinance, which is to reduce the visual impact of the signs on College which I think again is a very good idea as it enhances the overall city. Hall asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Bello asked the applicant if he heard him correctly that he would be willing to bring the size into compliance and go back to 90 sq. ft. as a maximum. The applicant replies that he would be willing to do that. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion Bello asked that if the applicant is willing to bring the sign into the 90 sq. ft. compliance, and with the height being in compliance with the setback, would the sign be theoretically in compliance with the code. Barnes replied that was correct. Dickson commented she agreed with that; it has the effect of a visual setback of at least 15 feet. Hall asked what the height limit is at 15 feet. Barnes replied 12 feet which is the same that the applicant is proposing to lower the sign. Bello stated the sign would have to be redesigned; the applicant would not be able to reuse the sign. The applicant agreed and said it would look similar but it would be a new sign which would be an improvement as well. Hall stated he is definitely in favor of that because of the frontage road setback. It keeps the same net effect in terms of signs being uniform as you drive down College Avenue. Dickson said the way the request is written right now, the applicant would like to keep it at 110 sq. ft. but we would have to deny that along the lines of what we're talking about. She asked when they deny that, could they say we would allow 90 sq. ft. Barnes replied that since it's less of a request than what was mailed out to the neighbors we don't have to re -notify people. If you were granting a variance to a greater extent that what was requested, then we'd have to table this and re -notify the affected neighbors. Bello stated the board could approve this with the condition that the sign be reduced in size to 90 sq. ft. Barnes said they would be approving the height and setback variance only and allowing a sign up to 90 sq. ft. which still requires a variance. Hall stated the reason is that it's on the property line so they would be approving the height and setback variance as requested and requiring the sign to be brought within compliance to 90 sq. ft. Barnes said that's correct since that is the maximum size allowed regardless of the setback; if they set it back a 1,000 ft. from College Avenue, it still can't exceed 90 sq. ft. and 12 feet in height. Dickson stated she was thinking that would be equal to or better than. Hall said it was to him because of the property line setback, it meets the intent of what the code was trying to accomplish in terms of distance from the street. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal #2636 for the following reasons: The granting of the Variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard for ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 15 which the variance is requested is to have the sign at an appropriate height and square footage based on its setback, and the implied setback is from the road, but it's written as the property line. In this case the sign and property line are 50 feet from College Ave. which is considerably more than the 15 feet required. Dickson moved to allow the variance in height to be 12 feet, as requested, due to the implied setback being at least 15 feet from the road, and require that the sign be brought into compliance for size to the maximum of 90 square feet that the City allows. Hall stated that the motion is to grant a variance with the condition that the sign be no greater than 90 sq. feet. Bello said he didn't hear Dickson say that they are granting the variance for the zero setback, which we have to do too. Dickson replied she didn't specifically say that so yes is part of the motion. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes: Dickson, McBride, Pisula, Bello, Hall Nays: None Abstain: 7. Appeal 2637 — Granted with condition. Address: 209 W. Troutman Pkwy Petitioner: Mary Zenzen Zoning District: C Section: 318.7(G)(1) Background: The variance will allow a 56 square foot per side monument sign to be 16' tall instead of the maximum allowed height of 8' at a 3' setback from the lot line. Specifically, the existing sign is a nonconforming sign which needs to be brought into compliance by February 25, 2009. The variance request would allow an extension of time in order for the sign to remain as is until such time as the dead-end of Troutman Parkway is reconstructed by the City as part of the Mason Corridor project. Another option requested is to allow the existing 56 sq. ft. per face sign to be reduced to 12' in height at its current location as a permanent solution, instead of the maximum height allowed of 8' at the existing setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the applicant's request. He stated that the Fort Collins Collision Repair facility is located where West Troutman Parkway dead -ends. Troutman Parkway is not going to go through, and this is the proposed location for one of the transit facilities in conjunction with the Mason Corridor project. ,The City will be designing it probably with a cul-de-sac and with either some right-of-way taken out of this property or an easement that need to be granted to accommodate the cul-de-sac. The transit station would be constructed in this area as well. There will be some changes and it's not known yet what it would mean to this particular applicant's property. One option requested is to grant a time extension until such time as the City designs this facility and the applicant has an opportunity to look into the details of that and figure out what that means as far as traffic in front of the facility and then give more thoughtful design to a sign. In lieu of that, allow the existing sign to remain at the 3-foot setback, reduce the height to 12 ft in height. At a 3-foot setback, the maximum height allowed would be approximately 8 feet. So one request is the time extension and another option is to allow the existing sign to be at a 12-foot height instead of an 8-foot height. The size is okay at a 3-foot setback; the 56 square foot per face sign at that setback, so it's really the issue of the height at this setback from property line that is the problem. So those are the two options. The sign is actually a ZBA December 11, 2008—Page 16 single -sided sign. There is no signage on the west side of this panel, because there is no traffic that would benefit from having signage there. Detailed drawings provided by the City Real Estate Services department showing the cul-de-sac and the proposed facility are available to look at. As far as timing Barnes did talk to someone in Transportation Planning about timing for the Mason Corridor. It might be a couple of years yet before facilities are put in place. Then there's always the possibility that if the funding dries up or goes away, that it might not happen for a long time. Applicant's Presentation: Mary Zenzen, 209 W. Troutman Zenzen stated that she and her husband own the property at 209 W. Troutman, Fort Collins Collision Repair. She referred to a photo that doesn't show any cars in front of the business because it was probably taken on a weekday or a holiday. But usually parked cars cause a visibility problem, and the sign is only visible at the intersection. If we were to drop that monument sign down to 8 feet, all the visibility would be taken away from us because of the parked cars. There's not much that can be done about the cars parked in the street at this time, so that's why they requested lowering the sign to only 12 feet. They are looking forward to improving the sign, but said it just makes more sense to just wait and see how the street is impacted there. Then they'll know if the sign should be moved. It also looks like the plan would knock out all parking, in which case an 8-foot sign would make more sense. Right now they just don't have enough information to make a good decision. Hall asked Zenzen to show them on her photo where the sign is. She approached Hall with the photo. Daggett suggested that Hall state that on the record so that the tape for the proceeding includes the information that he just received. Hall stated that they just identified on a city aerial photo where the sign currently exists and an overlay of the potential Mason Street development and the shrub bed with the big shadow. Board Discussion Hall stated that If they're really going to build the Mason Street Corridor in a couple of years, he thinks they ought to wait to have them change the sign because it looks like that the sign is really close to the structure that they're going to build, possibly close enough to it that it may have to be moved anyway. He asked if anyone discussed with you the possibility they might have to move the sign when the city constructs the ramp that goes to the underpass. Zenzen said no one from the City has actually discussed with them what the implications might be. She said that if the sign has to be changed, it does not make financial sense to have to redo it twice. The only reason they would change the sign now would be to comply by February 25. _ Dickson stated with the sign being at 16 ft. now, it would probably need to be brought to 12 feet. That's the maximum height of a ground sign anywhere in the city. When there is more information later on, it probably will have to be brought to 12 feet anyway. Hall stated it looks like it would have to be lowered to 8 feet at its current setback unless they were to get more property. Barnes said yes, at some point. Obviously what's there now does not comply. He stated that Zenzen's point was that to lower the sign now and then have to move it later would create a lot of hardship and expense. Hall said he is looking for language here for discussing permitting the sign to stay as is until the corridor plan is completed. Barnes replied perhaps for a maximum of two years or sooner if the Mason Corridor plans are finalized sooner than that. If it turns out that two years is not sufficient ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 17 time, they'd have to come back for a time extension. By then we we would have a definite idea of how close they are to getting the plans finalized. Dickson asked Barnes if it would be an expense that the city would undertake if the surroundings were modified due to the actions of the city. Barnes said he had discussed that with real estate services and because it's unknown at this time whether it will be a right-of-way dedication or some sort of easement, whether it be a permanent easement or a temporary easement even, they're not sure. If it were a right-of-way dedication, that would be part of what the city would have to compare for the cost of acquiring that right-of-way. Daggett added that the compensation issue would be affected by an indication of whether this was a variance that's intended to allow this sign to actually remain in place like this or whether it's intended just to delay the compliance date because of the uncertainty. Hall said he thinks it's probably the latter. It's because this element of unknown change potentially coming that we would wait until we know what that change looks like. The applicant stated that if the cul-de-sac goes in as planned, they wouldn't have the blocked visibility and dropping the sign to 8 feet would seem reasonable. Hall asked if an unknown future is a hardship and justification for the potential changes and effect that may have. Daggett stated in this situation the clear expectation that the city may be making changes in this immediate vicinity in the near future would likely be appropriate as an exceptional situation that you could consider. Hall made a motion to approve Appeal #2637. We find that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There is an exceptional situation in that there is the potential of a streetscape change in front of the business that could affect the sign compliance. The board has determined that it makes sense to grant a variance allowing the sign to remain as is until the improvement plans are completed but not longer than 2 years. At the end of two years, if we still don't know, the applicant would be able to come back and seek some other type of variance. This is a reasonable solution given this unique situation. Dickson asked if that would be from today's date or from February 25. Barnes said that February 25, 2009 would be the date, two years from February 25, 2009, or sooner. Hall agreed. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes: Dickson, McBride, Pisula, Bello, Hall Nays: None Abstain: Other Business: Barnes stated that election of officers will occur at the march meeting. Barnes and members of the Board discussed a possible code change to the rear half of the lot floor area issue. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m. ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 18 wight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator