Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/09/2015Michael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Robert Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison, Gino Campana Staff Liaison, Noah Beals Location: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call221-6515 (TOO 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING APRIL 9, 2015 8:30AM • Call to Order and Roll Call Boardmembers Absent: Long, Stockover • Citizen Participation (Items Not on the Agenda): None • Approval of Minutes from March meeting Shuff made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve the minutes from the March 12, 2015 meeting. Yeas: Bello, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none. Abstain: Bear. THE MOTION CARRIED. • Appeals for Variance to the Land Use Code 1. APPEAL # 2798 -Withdrawn - 420 Hawkins Street 2. APPEAL #2799 - Denied Address: Petitioner: Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1856 North College Avenue Wendy Bergman, Contractor (Gordon Sign) Perfect Teeth North College PC C-C-N 3.8.7(J) The variance would allow an existing flush wall sign for Perfect Teeth to remain in place on the south wall. The existing flush wall sign projects 12.5 inches above the top of the canopy. The code does not allow a canopy sign to project above the canopy on which it is mounted. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the approved sign permit showed that the sign would be wall-mounted. Upon inspection, the sign was found to be mounted on the canopy instead of on the wall. Beals stated the applicant should have discussed the issue with staff prior to installing the sign as they did and stated staff is recommending denial of the appeal as there is no unique hardship. Zoning Board of Appeals Page2 April 9, 2015 Bello asked if the sign is further off the face of the building, but lower than it would have been if placed on the wall. Beals replied in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation: Wendy Bergman, Gordon Sign, 5861 Terminal Avenue, Colorado Springs, stated the original architectural drawings showed three tie-backs; however, the canopy ended up with four tie-backs and the sign therefore not fit on the wall. She asked if she could resubmit for a new permit. Beals replied a variance would still be required. Bear requested an explanation of the race-way mentioned by Ms. Bergman. Ms. Bergman replied the race-way is a long rectangular box behind the letters which houses the electrical components. She stated the sign cannot be modified to fit with four tie-backs. Bello asked Ms. Bergman if a discussion has been held with the architect regarding adjusting the tie­ backs. Ms. Bergman replied in the negative. Bear asked if the building is new construction. Ms. Bergman replied in the affirmative. McCoy stated it appears a smaller sign could fit on the building below the cables. Ms. Bergman replied that a smaller sign could fit. McCoy asked if the sign could sit on the roof above where it was originally permitted. Beals replied City regulations do not allow roof-mounted signs. Bear asked if any other businesses in the area have been granted a similar variance. Beals replied he is not aware of any and stated the regulation is in place for aesthetic reasons and because the code prohibits roof-top signs. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Shuff discussed the importance of the City's sign code and stated there is no reason a new building should not be compliant. She stated a creative solution could be found to meet the code. Bello agreed and stated he cannot find any justification for the variance. McCoy made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny Appeal No. 2799, for the following reasons: the applicant has not demonstrated how the variance request is due to a unique hardship of the property that is not caused by the act or omission of the applicant and there are options to locate the sign on different portions of the building; it is not limited to the fascia of the canopy. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL #2800 - Approved Address: Petitioners: Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1500 West Mountain Avenue Jeff Gaines, HighCraft Builders Jennifer Crane and Scott Dennin ' g N-C-L 4.7(E)(4) The variance would allow a new 460 square foot one-story addition to be built on a corner lot. The proposed addition would be constructed 2 feet 11 inches into the required 15 foot corner side setback. The existing house is already 3 feet 3 inches into the required 15 foot corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the existing structure already encroaches into the setback. Additionally, Beals noted the addition is only 10% of the total frontage along Roosevelt Zoning Board of Appeals Page3 April 9, 2015 and stated there are no sidewalks along Roosevelt in the area. He stated staff is recommending approval based on the variance being nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. McCoy asked if the setback is further back than the curb. Beals replied in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation: Jennifer Crane, 1117 West Oak, stated she has owned the subject property since 2003. Jeff Gaines, 230 North McKinley Avenue, discussed the proposed addition and the need for the variance. He noted the curb is approximately 24 feet from the house and discussed varying setbacks of other homes in the area. Additionally, he noted the addition would be difficult to be seen given existing vegetation and fencing. Ms. Crane stated she appreciates and understands the Old Town atmosphere and does not want to interfere with that. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bello stated the variance is nominal and inconsequential. Bear and Shuff agreed. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. 2800 for the following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment distance is less than the existing structure and therefore the variance will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL #2801 -Approved with Condition Address: 519 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner/Owners: Chris and Ellen Kelly Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(2) Project Description: The variance would allow a 10 foot x 18 foot porch cover to be constructed 4 feet 4 inches into the required 15 foot front setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the property abuts an alley. He stated staff is recommending approval of the variance as being nominal and inconsequential with the condition that the porch remains open on three sides. Shuff asked about other structures encroaching into the setback. Beals showed slides indicated the block to the west has encroaching structures. Applicant Presentation: Chris Kelly, 519 West Mountain Avenue, stated the house originally had a porch which was replaced with an addition in the 1940s. He stated this porch would be consistent with its proper Queen Anne Victorian style and noted the Landmark Preservation Commission has approved the plan. Shuff asked how the ten foot dimension was arrived upon. Mr. Kelly replied the depth is functional for the family and matches what the original design was assumed to be. Audience Participation: None Zoning Board of Appeals Page4 April 9, 2015 Board Discussion: Shuff expressed appreciation for appealing to the character of the house but expressed concern regarding the depth of the porch and noting the larger right-of-way on Mountain Avenue is there for a reason. She stated it is important to keep the context of buildings from the street on Mountain, stated an 8 foot depth would still be functional. Bear expressed similar concerns but noted the Board does not exist to design projects. Shuff stated that the Board needs to determine whether or not the variance would be nominal and inconsequential in context with the neighborhood and questioned whether or not other homes on the block have any similar extension. Bello expressed concern with the 1 0 foot depth as well. McCoy commended the design and argued that the variance would be nominal and inconsequential as the property line and street are quite a distance from one another. He stated the design fits the scope of the structure and did not agree the variance would place the structure out of line with others along Mountain. Bello asked how the 1 0 foot measurement was arrived upon. Mr. Kelly replied Historic Preservation would not allow a wraparound porch and stated this design would be functional without excessive mass and would aid in enhancing not only the house but the neighborhood as well. Bear asked if Mr. Kelly has had conversations with neighbors regarding the design. Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative stating neighbors to the east and west and across the alley are in support of the project. Beals noted the block to the east of the subject is also split with an alley and the two business structures are located up to the right-of-way. Bear stated this project would be an enhancement to the block. Shuff expressed appreciation for the design and work with Historic Preservation; however, she expressed concern regarding the feeling of the project from a pedestrian perspective. Shields expressed support for the variance given the setback. Bear made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal No. 2801, with the condition that the porch remains open on three sides, as the request is not detrimental to the public good. With the additional four feet of public right-of-way, the impact into the setback is minimized. The request is for an open-wall structure and the encroachment is limited to a one-story structure and support beams. Other buildings on the block to the west of the property also encroach into the front setback; therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields. Nays: Shuff THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. APPEAL #2802 - Approved Address: 324 East Oak Street Petitioner/Owners: Rob Kittle Zoning District: N-C-B Code Section: 4.9(0)(3); (0)(6)(d ); ( E )(2)(a )(1); and (E )(2)(b }(1) Project Description: Four variances are requested: The first variance would allow a second story addition to be built on an accessory building with habitable space resulting in 1225 total square feet. The code restricts accessory buildings with habitable space to 600 square feet. The second variance would allow an accessory building with habitable space to encroach 6 feet into the required 7 foot side yard setback. The existing building is 1 foot from the west property line. The third variance would allow an accessory building with habitable space to be 2 stories. The code allows accessory buildings Zoning Board of Appeals PageS April 9, 2015 with habitable space to be a maximum of 1.5 stories. The fourth variance would allow an accessory building with habitable space to have an eave height along a side property line of 22 feet high. The code restricts the eave height of accessory buildings with habitable space to 13 feet along any side property line. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to appeal and discussed the four variances requested, noting staff is recommending approval based on the variances being nominal and inconsequential or equal to or better than the standard. Shuff asked if the proposed additional square footage meets the density requirements for the lot. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bear asked if the accessory building currently includes habitable space. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bello noted the accessory building does not have restrooms. Applicant Presentation: Per Hogestad, Architect, stated he completed the conceptual design for the building as part of the City's Design Assistance Program, associated with the Historic Preservation department. Rob Kittle, 324 East Oak Street, discussed the history of the property; CSU built this cinder block building that backs to the alley. He noted the habitable space would simply be office space. He stated neighbors have expressed support for the project. Mr. Hogestad noted that the original architect for the historic main house, which is not being modified, was Montezuma Fuller; 1890s-1900s well know architect. Fuller designed the Laurel School, the former Stone Lion bookstore, and other structures in the area. He doesn't think that the cinder block blocking is in context of the neighborhood. Shuff asked about the house to the east. Mr. Kittle replied it is a 2-story duplex and noted the property to the west has structures on the alley. There was a discussion about the placement of the stairs to the second story and whether moving the stairs would meet the setbacks requirements. Bear requested clarification of the zone district. Beals replied the property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district which buffers the area between the downtown area and residential areas. Beals noted a carriage house in the area could be 1,000 square feet; however, an accessory building can only be 600 square feet. Deputy City Attorney Eckman discussed the purpose of the NCB zone district as being a transition area. Bear asked if the use of the accessory building could change. Beals replied the use of the accessory building is to be solely by the occupant of the primary residence. Shuff noted the ceiling height is lower than 7 feet 5 inches; therefore, only a portion of the square footage would actually count as needing a variance. McCoy commended the plan as meeting the definition of the zone district. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bear stated she was originally concerned about the impact of this project; however, given the definition of the zone district, she stated the project is a good fit with the context of the neighborhood. Shuff agreed noting this variance keeps with the neighborhood and preserves the main house. Bello noted additional letters of support were received by the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Page6 April 9, 2015 Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. 2802 in its entirety as requested for the following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the second story will not increase the distance of the building to the west property line, the second story will not include any windows along the west property line, the variances all pertain to the accessory building which sits behind the primary structure, the alley is shared with non-residential uses of downtown zone district, the primary structure is historic therefore an expansion of floor area to the accessory structure is preferred, the property is zoned as a buffer which supports the requests; therefore, the variances requested will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 6. APPEAL #2803 - Denied Address: Petitioner: Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 5204 Greenway Drive Landmark Garages Jay Kennedy R-L 4.4(D)(2)(c) The variance would allow a newly constructed garage to remain encroaching 9 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. A building permit was issued based on a site plan that illustrated the structure in compliance with the 15 foot rear yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to appeal noting it� location off College Avenue near Fossil Creek Parkway. He stated a garage permit was issued based on a site plan indicating the garage would be in compliance with all setback requirements. During final inspections for issuance of a certificate of occupancy, it was found that the garage was not located as per the site plan. Therefore, the variance request would allow the constructed garage to remain encroaching 9 feet into the required 15 foot setback. He noted the applicant, Landmark Garages, was unaware of a rear addition to the house when he submitted the site plan; which made moving the garage location necessary. However, the applicant did not discuss the issue with Zoning prior to constructing the garage. Beals stated staff is recommending denial of the request as there is no unique hardship not caused by an act or omission of the applicant. Bello asked if the garage would need to be removed or moved if the request were denied. Beals replied in the affirmative stating the Building Department would deal with that aspect. Shuff asked why this issue was not discovered at the footing and foundation inspection. Beals replied he is unsure when the inspections were requested. Applicant Presentation: Merrill Miller, Landmark Garages, PO Box 3224, Dillon, Colorado, stated that their engineer did complete a foundation inspection and admitted fault in placing the garage in the incorrect location. He noted the property owners would like to have the garage remain in its existing location due to functionality. Jennifer Van DeVeere, 5204 Greenway Drive, stated they had no idea until recently there was an issue with the location of the garage and given they hired a contractor, they are at a loss regarding what to do. She stated the garage would be useless in terms of getting cars in and out if it were moved. She submitted letters of support from neighbors. Additionally, she stated other neighbors have garages near the property line. Bello asked if habitable space exists above the garage. Mr. Miller replied no, it is storage. Bear asked who submitted the permit to the City. Mr. Miller replied his daughter, who works for his company, submitted the permit. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 April 9, 2015 Bear asked about the shed on the property. Mr. Miller replied the shed was not part of the original site plan but existed on the property and caused the issue with placement of the garage. Audience Participation: Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, Fossil Creek Meadows HOA, stated the HOA did not approve this structure prior to its construction. She discussed the mass of the structure and noted the subject lot is one of the smaller lots in the neighborhood. Additionally, she expressed concern the original building permit stated there would be no electrical on the building; however, there are two exterior lights. The garage building permit was issued in December. She also stated the yard of the home behind the subject property will be greatly affected by shadowing. The HOA contacted the owners at Christmas-time, but the garage was already built at that time. Bear asked about the property manager mentioned by Ms. Rose. Ms. Rose replied Faith Property Management manages the neighborhood open space, manages dues, aids with HOA meetings, and distributes architectural design forms; however, the Board makes decisions regarding improvement applications. McCoy asked when the application was made to the HOA. Ms. Rose replied it was made after the structure was completed, although, the owner stated he submitted an application prior to building though that was never seen by the property management company nor any of the HOA members. Rich Stave, 5410 Fossil Ridge Drive, Fossil Creek Meadows HOA, stated a physical architectural design application was not received prior to the construction of the garage and discussed his involvement in the issue. He questioned how the HOA is expected to work with the City given the building permit was issued by the City without HOA approval. Bear asked if a complaint was filed during the construction of the garage. Mr. Stave replied it is not clear when the foundation was poured, noting it is behind a six foot privacy fence. He stated the violation letter was sent after the garage being completed. Cree Goodwin, 5205 Griffith Drive, stated he owns the property behind the subject and expressed concern about the height of the garage regarding privacy and the shadowing effect of the structure for half of the day, as well as his ability to locate an accessory building on his lot. He noted that it is a beautiful building but should not be on his fence line. Board Discussion: Bello stated this is an unfortunate situation; however, he noted there is a reason for the building permit and notification process and stated this was a poorly implemented plan. Shuff suggested the Board examine the variance request assuming the structure was not in place. She also stated the issue is due to errors and omissions by the contractor. Bello suggested there is not enough information to make the decision as to whether or not the Board would have approved the variance request. Bear suggested the setback is in place partially to ensure that other properties are not shaded; therefore, the construction of this building appears to be detrimental to the public good as neighbors are being negatively impacted. Bello agreed and stated the Board has granted former requests for existing structures encroaching setbacks, but they have been near greenbelts and open space, which is not this case. Shuff agreed and stated the structure negatively impacts neighbors. Additionally, they have shown no substantial evidence of hardship. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny Appeal No. 2803 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public good, the applicant has not demonstrated . how the variance request is due to a unique hardship of the property that is not caused by the act or omission of the applicant, it is not seen that this is the only location for the garage and there appears to be other complying locations on the property. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Bello, McCoy, Bear and Shields. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals PageB April 9, 2015 • OTHER BUSINESS Beals stated we already have items for next month's agenda. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:43 a.m . ..