No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/2000 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting April 13, 2000 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes from the March 9, 2000 meeting. 3. Appeal : 2289 The variance would reduce the required side yard (west) setback from 9' to 6' in order to allow a 2 story addition to the north side of the existing home. Section 4.7(E)(4), by Kim Normandin, Architecht. 606 W. Mountain Ave. 4. Appeal : 2290 The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15' to 12' in order to allow an existing porch to be removed, rebuilt, and enclosed. The existing porch has a roof structure and extends 67'from the front of the house. The new addition will extend 8'6", be fully enclosed, and used as living space. Section 4.6(E)(1), by Dian Opperman, Owner. 911 W. Mountain Ave. 5. Appeal : 2291 The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15' to 12' in order to allow a 320 sq. ft. addition to the west side of the home. The front wall of the addition will line up with the existing front wall of the home, which is already at a 12' setback. Section 4.7(E)(2), by David Freele, Son/Tenant. 1113 Maple Street. 6. Appeal : 2292 The variance would reduce the required 5'wide parking lot landscape strip along the west lot line adjacent to the alley to 0% reduce the width of the drive aisle in the parking lot from 24'to 232", and reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 133 sq. ft to 0' in order to allow a parking lot that is necessary to serve the 2 new residential units in the proposed four story addition on the west side of the existing building and the 5 new residential units in the proposed second floor addition over the existing building. Section 3.2.2(J), 3.2.2(L), and 3.2.2(M)(1), by Jeff Errett and Carr Bieker, Architects. 145 E. Mountain Ave. 7. Appeal : 2293 The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5,000 sq. ft. to 4,600 sq. ft., reduce the required lot area to floor area ration from 2 to 1 to 1.84 to 1, and allow a bow window in the front and rear of the house to not be perpendicular to the side lot lines. The variances are proposed in order to allow the existing one story home to be demolished and replaced with a new 2,500 sq. ft. two story home. Section 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(F)(1)(a), by Dennis Sovick, Contractor. 508 W. Mountain Avenue. 8. Other Business ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting April 13, 2000 Appeal 2289: --- 606 W. Mountain Ave. --- Petitioner: Kim Normandin, Architecht --- Zone: NCM --- 4.7(E)(4) -- The variance would reduce the required side yard (west) setback from 9' to 6' in order to allow a 2 story addition to the north side of the existing home. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing covered front porch currently sits at a 5' setback from the west property line. The new addition will be set back an additional 1' (6). Architecturally, the owner and architect want to keep the same roof lines through to the new construction as the original house. The point of the wall which measures 25' high is at the highest point on the north gable. Most of that wall will fall within the required setback. --- Staff comments: The wall height of the existing building is only 23', the wall height of the new addition is 25.5'. Appeal 2294: --- 911 W. Mountain Ave. --- Petitioner: Dian Opperman, Owner -- Zone: NCL i , -- 4.6(E)(1) --- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15'to 12' in order to allow an existing porch to be removed, rebuilt, and enclosed. The existing porch has a roof structure and extends 6'2"from the front of the house. The new addition will extend 8'6", be fully enclosed, and used as living space. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner states that an addition was recently put on the south side of the home for her in-home business. There is extensive professional landscaping in the rear yard. The owner cannot have her business located within living space of the home due to State Cosmetology Board regulations—she is required to have a separate entrance, which is currently located on the south wall. -- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2291: --- 1113 Maple Street — Petitioner: David Freele, Son/Tenant — Zone: NCM --- 4.7(E)(2) The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15' to 12' in order to allow a 320 sq. ft. addition to the west side of the home. The front wall of the addition will line up Q with the existing front wall of the home, which is already at a 12' setback. v) Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is small and shallow, the existing home is small, only 380 sq. ft. The only feasible location to construct the addition is on the west side of the existing home. The home is 102 years old, and due to the nature of the existing foundation and construction, it is necessary to tie into the existing comers of the building. --- Staff comments: None. 3 Appeal 2292: --- 145 E. Mountain Ave. --- Petitioner: Jeff Errett/Carr Bieker, Architects -- Zone: D -- 3.2.2(J), 3.2.2(L), and 3.2.2(M)(1) --- The variance would reduce the required 5'wide parking lot landscape strip along the west lot line adjacent to the alley to 0', reduce the width of the drive aisle in the parking lot from 24'to 232", and reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 133 sq. ft to 0' in order to allow a parking lot that is necessary to serve the 2 new residential units in the proposed four story addition on the west side of the existing building and the 5 new residential units in the proposed second floor addition over the existing building. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See Petitioner's letter. -- Staff comments: The parking space labeled as number 13 on the site plan will be difficult to get into since it is so close to the parking lot entrance (i.e. the turning radius is so tight, the only way to get into the space may be to pull forward and then back a car in). The Board may want to require that this space be eliminated and turned into a usable landscape area amenity, with perhaps a picnic table. This would satisfy the interior parking lot landscape requirement and a variance would no longer be needed for that section. Appeal 2293: --- 508 W. Mountain Ave. -- Petitioner: Dennis Sovick, Contractor Zone: NCM -- 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(F)(1)(a) --- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5,000 sq. ft. to 4,600 sq. ft., reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 2 to 1 to 1.84 to 1, and allow a bow window in the front and rear of the house to not be perpendicular to the side lot lines. The variances V are proposed in order to allow the existing one story home to be demolished and replaced with a new 2,500 sq. ft. two story home. -- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is narrow and smaller than normal. The adjacent lots are larger than this one and there are other 2-story homes adjacent. The home will comply with all setback regulations. --- Staff comments: None. Other Business: --- May breakfast meeting and delayed starting time. Zoning Board of Appeals April 13, 2000 it n Appeal#2289-606 West Mountain Avenue Appeal#2290-Withdrawn !. ,. �I Appeal#2291 - 1113 Maple Street - Appeal#2292- 145 East Mountain ' Appeal#2293-508 West Mountain Avenue Q� a� Appeal#2289-606 W.Mountain Ave. The variance would reduce the ON of Fart C.11— required side yard(west)setback from 9'to 6'in order to allow a two- story addltlon to the north side of the existing home. t � — � f tar: .. v The existing Carfidge port currently Sits 5'from the Existing nosh elevation. Along the west s+de of the home the proposed !�' west property line. addition will extend approximately 12'to the west and 18'to the north. t, a,tti ryA View along the west property ine. The existing carriage port will be enclosed with an open patio between that and the Looking north towards the rear of the property. praposed addition. 1 L [1_ l� 1 Looking along the east property sine. The proposed Appeal#2291-1113 Maple St. The variance would reduce addition will line up with the existing house on the east the required front yard setback from 15'to 12'in order to allow., side with a setback of 10 feet. a 320 sq.It addition to the west side of the home. u f .4 12 feet to property line -which is 1 the street curb. The proposed addition will line up with the north wall of Looking east along the front property line and the west wal of the existing home. The home currently sits 12'in from the front the existing home and extend to the west. property line e r Trs. West side of the house. The proposed addition will extend 20'to the west and line up with the front and rear wall of the existing East property pine. structure. —— _ I r_X . 5r _ iy y Looking west along the north(front)property line. b Appeal#2292. 145 East Mounta n Ave. -I - s -F e �� The building rs located at the south-west Comer of - - Mountain Ave.and Remington St. The parking garage ,The proposed 4-story building will be located in what is is directly to the east. A second floor addition is � ;z currently a parking lot on the west side of the existing proposed on this portion of the building shown. " building. 77 i� Facing south,looking at the front elevation East elevation at intersection of Mountain and Remington. from across Mountain Ave. Bull Mountain Ave. p el 1 ntasq Ica n —•� a�uoq+c a ..� �� ! ��—- i I D TM 6 ♦l..rn � - :J l i _• �,_srl tj 3 `� .�� %' I } rraxYoa�ws r�; 1 .ly �k� : 3 rsoM�} I �+ot�vu,�a0[crecwc { i3 I o._ ; AgYAT[ - 1 -1 ti� I ,� M F IV...I ` r �I Proposed 6' Screen wall nan,".e W.: 2b'ALLEY South side of the ex sting building Remington St.and the ` parking garage are in the background. Three parking spaces ` are being proposed under the existing overhang shown above. The alley along the south side of the building is 20 feet wide. Approx.screen%y I location Existing parking lot on the west side of the existing bu Iding. The proposed new building will be located on the front(north)of the lot North-south alley facing onto Mountain Ave. A six foot high with a new parking area proposed to the south of the building. screening wall is proposed to screen the new parking area. 4 i - Appeal it2293- 508 W.Mountain Ave. The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5000 s%ft,to 46M sq.ft.•reduce the required lot area to r. floor area ratio from 2:1 to 1.84 1,and allow a bow window in the front and rear East side of the existing building along Remington St., of the house to not be perpendicular to the side lot ines The variances are looking north towards Mountain Ave. proposed in order to alloy the existing one story home to be demolished and - =laced with a new 2500 sc.A.two-st:xy home. r -- View along the east sidepropj4line. Looking north from the back stoop into the back yard. The fences are located on the property lines. b � C ,II �r i:lw t 1 Looking south from the back yard along the west side property — line. Full view of the back of the house-looking towards the south. aTC°Otx n n ems" Three-story home located directly behind home shown on Two-story home located directly adjacent-east-of 508 W. previous slide. This home fronts on Sherwood St. Mountain Ave. North-west comer of Mountain and Sherwood. The End The white roof in the center of the slide is the roof of 508 W. City of Fort Collins Mountain Ave. - _ 12- zoo i ryy /\�OI'�srYJ 4?G�i i l ��"�7/ G G/ , 7G� '7!/je. Cs? 46P W-1-VIC ur,/-�7.r, mac% . �oro�oe� ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 7 Zone: D Section: 3.2.2(J), 3.2.2(L) and 3.2.2(M)(1) Back round: The variance would reduce the requiared 5' wide parking lot landscape strip along the west lot line adjacent to the alley to 0',reduce the width of the drive aisle in the parking lot from 24' to 23'2",and reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 133 sq. ft. to 0' in order to allow a parking lot that is necessary to serve the 2 new residential units in the proposed four story addition on the west side of existing building and the 5 new residential units in the proposed second floor addition over the existing building. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The Board was directed to refer to a letter submitted by the Petitioner and the hardships noted therein. Staff Comments: Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. Nuckols instructed the Board to refer to the elevation drawings submitted by the Applicant in conjunction with the slides to better understand the proposed addition. Nuckols showed slides of the present structure and surrounding sites, noting where the proposed additions and new structure would be located. The area of the proposed parking lots were viewed and Nuckols commented that some covered parking would be utilized in one of the buildings. The sites where the Applicant is asking to eliminate the required landscaping for that area were viewed and where the 6' high masonry screen would be installed in place of the landscaping. Nuckols noted the area where the backup distance for parking was being asked to be reduced from 24' to 23'2". Nuckols showed slides of the adjoining alley along Remington Street. Shannon asked Nuckols to clarify the required backup distances. Nuckols stated that when parking stalls are located at 90 degree angles, the requirement is that there be 24' of space behind them to allow vehicles to back up, turn and exit. Shannon questioned if the amount was reduced to the 23'2", if it would only allow compact cars and motorcycles to park in those spaces. Nuckols replied that it will make for a little tighter backing space with the reduction and the stalls that were shown as being 15', would need to be designated for compact cars only, the 1 S' x 9' stalls are standard sized stalls. Applicant Participation: Applicants, Carl Bieker and Jeff Erritt addressed the Board. Bieker stated that the property presently is being used in the same manner as what is proposed, with parking functioning in a very similar way as what it would be after the proposed construction. Bieker commented that regarding the request to eliminate the 5' landscape buffer, since they are limited to the dimension of the site, they are proposing a 6' high screen wall along the west side of the property along the alley as well as the south side of the alley, forming an ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 8 "L". Bicker said that this wall would also encompass the trash dumpsters. Bicker commented that they feel the 6' high masonry wall would be better than the landscaping strip because it shields the view from the public more effectively. Bicker commented that the entrance for the residential tenants would utilize a moving gate allowing entry through the wall. Bicker said in reference to the parking spaces that were noted as being smaller than standard,namely#14, 15 and 16, those spaces would not have any change in size or function from how they are currently being used. Bicker commented that the backup space reduction from 24' to 23'2" is only reducing that area by 2 inches and they would be assigned parking spaces in which the user would become accustomed to backing up in those conditions. Miscio questioned what type of tenants would be occupying the residential units. Bicker replied that they have yet to make a market study of the project, but the addition will consist of loft type rental units similar in style to the Denver Lodo area and will probably be Iisted on the moderate to high end of the market. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Board discussion ensued regarding the case of parking in some of the spaces, particularly space#13, which is the first space situated near the electric transformer off the alley. It was noted that there is a pedestrian walking isle consisting of painted striping, adjacent to that parking space that could help add some width to that stall. The Board assumed that future tenants would probably be aware of the tight parking and would not rent there if they did not think it would be acceptable. Stockover asked Barnes if they could stipulate that certain spaces be designated for compact parking only. Barnes replied that this project would only be allowed to have 40%compact parking and they already are at that maximum not including the spaces in question. Barnes commented that the variance request could be amended to allow for more than the 40% compact car designation. Shannon questioned Barnes why there was a requirement for landscaping along an alley. Barnes responded that the Code stipulates parking lots to be screened in some manner and the Code does not differentiate between parking located near an alley for commercial property, or a residential area where it may be more worthwhile. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal #2292 for the hardship stated. Shannon seconded the motion. -- Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Shannon, Pawlikowski Nays: None Appeal 2292 was approved. ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 9 6. APPEAL 2293: -- Approved Address: 508 W. Mountain Ave. Petitioner: Dennis Sovick, Contractor Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(F)(1)(a) Back ound: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5,000 sq. ft. to 4,600 sq. ft., reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 2 to 1 to 1.84 to 1, and allow a bow window in the front and rear of the house to not be perpendicular to the side lot lines. The variances are proposed in order to allow the existing one story home to be demolished and replaced with a new 2,500 sq. ft. two story home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is narrow and smaller than normal. The adjacent lots are larger than this one and there are other 2-story homes adjacent. The home will comply with all setback regulations. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. Slides were viewed of the existing home in all directions, including the east elevation which showed the existing single car garage. Nuckols showed slides of neighboring properties that were either 2 or 3 story homes. Barnes commented that in the NCM zoning, the lot area requirement is actually twofold, to have a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq. ft., and the lot area needs to be twice as large as the floor area of the building. Barnes mentioned that the Applicant is proposing a 2,500 sq. ft. home to be built on this 4,600 sq. ft. lot, so the request for the variance includes the request to vary the 2 to 1 lot area ratio to 1.84 to 1. Nuckols noted that in this particular district, the garage square footage was included in the calculation of the overall square footage for the lot to floor area ratio. Shannon asked for clarification regarding the bow window not being perpendicular to the lot lines. Nuckols explained that in the development standards for the NCM district, it states that any exterior wall greater than 6' in length has to be constructed parallel to, or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot whenever the lot is rectangular in shape. The Applicant is proposing rounded windows and therefore are not at right angles. Barnes mentioned that this case is different than what the Board normally sees regarding this particular statute. Where other cases have had variance requests to vary design of an addition that did not have walls perpendicular to property lines, this case is not a bay window, but a curved wall with windows in it. Barnes said that since the length of that curved wall is ZBA April 13,2000 Page 10 greater than b', it is not parallel or perpendicular to the lot lines and is not the typical bay window situation. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Dennis Sovick, addressed the Board. Sovick commented that after removing the existing garage, rather than building a conventional 2-car garage that would take up more of the lot square footage, the owner would be building a vertical garage. Sovick explained how a hydraulic lift would lift a vehicle up or down to the basement to available parking space in the garage. Sovick mentioned that the proposed home is consistent with the architecture in the area and many of them are 2-story structures, which seem to have approximately the same lot to floor area ratio as the proposed home. Miscio asked for clarification on how the 2-story garage would work. Sovick gave a more detailed explanation of the workings of the hydraulic lifts in the garage. Miscio questioned how tall the garage would be. Sovick responded that it would be approximately 12 to 13 ft. high. Sovick commented that the garage is designed to fit the maximum space for a large vehicle. Public Participation: None Board Discussion: Shannon asked Barnes if the open spaces shown on the design plan were also included in the overall square footage calculations. Barnes replied that the extra height in the garage is not considered floor area as well as the other open areas and therefore do not count towards the overall square footage. Stockover asked Barnes if the front elevation of the proposed home would not be going against the intent of the Code. Barnes replied that it meets all the design standards in the Code, other than the bow window. Barnes commented that there are roof pitch minimums and maximums in the Code that the bow window would comply with. Shannon mentioned that there are other homes in the City with curved areas having this turret effect similar to the proposed bow window. Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal#2293 for the hardship of a small and narrow lot. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Shannon, Pawlikowski Nays: None ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 11 Appeal 2293 was approved. l� Other Business: Barnes stated that the May ZBA meeting would include a catered breakfast and breakfast would begin at 8:00 a.m., with the regular meeting convening at 9:00 a.m. There was some discussion regarding Appeal#2293 and possible code interpretation of the bow window presented at that appeal. Meeting adjourned at 10.20 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator