Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - - 04/12/2001 r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting April 12, 2001 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes from the March 15, 2001, meeting. 3. Appeal : 2331 The variance would reduce the required lot area for 210 Peterson Street from 5000 square feet to 4435 square feet The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of an 800 square feet alley house behind 208 Peterson Street. This appeal, together with Appeal 2332, would allow 2 single family homes behind 208 and 214 Peterson, rather than the one duplex that would be allowed without a variance. Section 4.7(D)(1), by Don Smith, Contractor. 210 Peterson Street. 4. Appeal : 2332 The variance would reduce the required lot area for 212 Peterson Street from 5000 square feet to 4500 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of an 800 square feet alley house behind 214 Peterson Street. This appeal, together with Appeal 2331, would allow 2 single family homes behind 208 and 214 Peterson, rather than the one duplex that would be allowed without a variance. Section 4.7(D)(1), by Don Smith, Contractor. 212 Peterson Street. 5. Appeal : 2333 The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building on the lot, instead of within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a massage therapy 47 business to be conducted in the existing 10' x 20' former detached garage. Section 3.8.3(1), by Kendra Melson and Brenda Van Dyke, Owners. 1124 Woodford Avenue. 6. Appeal : 2334 The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Laurel Street from 15 feet to six inches in order to allow a two-car attached garage to be constructed on the east side of the existing house. Section 4.7(E)(4), by Mike Jones, Owner. 700 Colorado Street. f, 7. Appeal : 2335 The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to six feet in order to allow a 6'x 12'addition onto the north end of the existing one-story portion of the home. The east wall of the proposed addition will line up with the existing east wall of the home,which is already at a six foot setback from the rear property line. Therefore,the addition will not be any closer to the rear lot line than the existing. Section 4.7(E)(3), by Linda Ripley, Owner. 110 North Sherwood Street. 8. Other Business ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting April 12, 2001 Appeal 2331 --- 210 Peterson Street --- Petitioner: Don Smith, contractor --- Zone: NCM --- Section 4.7(D)(1) --- The variance would reduce the required lot area for 210 Peterson Street from 5000 square feet to 4435 square feet.The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of an 800 square feet alley houses behind 208 Peterson Street. This appeal, together with appeal 2332, would allow 2 alley houses to be constructed behind 208 and 214 Peterson Street, rather than the one duplex that would be allowed without a variance. --- There is enough lot area to construct a duplex without the need for a variance. The Applicant originally submitted a development request for a duplex. However, after consideration by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) with input from the neighbors, it was decided that two small detached single-family homes would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Thus, since the current proposed does not increase the density beyond what would be allowed without a variance, the Applicant believes that the variance would result in development that is equal to or better than that which might otherwise occur. --- Staff comments: The petitioner is seeking a variance based on the "equal to or better than" standard, instead of the hardship standard. Therefore the Board must find that the proposal will "advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested". A proposal which complies with the standard would be one that combines the two proposed lots into one larger lot and proposes one duplex instead of 2 single-family homes. If the Board is inclined to grant the variance, specific findings must be stated as to how the proposal satisfies the "equal to or better than" standard. For instance the Board may find that the variance for the lot area reductions: 1) Would not be detrimental to the public good, and 2) The variance advances and protects the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested because: 0 The overall purpose of the standard is to limit the density of development w v on a lot and to ensure that there is adequate open space for the use and enjoyment of the occupants. Without a variance, the square footage of the land at the rear of 208 and 214 Peterson is large enough to allow 2 dwelling units in the form of a duplex, and the square footage of the duplex could be greater than the square footage of the home(s)that are being proposed. Therefore, the 2 proposed homes do not increase the density beyond what is allowed and the size of the two homes is minimal, thereby preserving approximately the same amount of open space that would be found with a duplex. The proposed rear homes will be subordinate in size and height to the existing front homes, whereas a single duplex building would be larger than the front homes. The Landmark Preservation Commission and City staff believe that a duplex structure would be out of character with the nearby designated properties, and would adversely impact the historical significance of the National Register District. The proposed "alley house" design of two single-family homes will preserve the historic attributes of the nearby properties and will protect the special character of this neighborhood better than a duplex would. If the Board determines that the variance requested does not"advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested", then the variance should not be approved. AAppeal 2332: --- 212 Peterson Street --- Petitioner: Don Smith, contractor --- Zone: NCM --- Section 4.7(D)(1) --- The variance would reduce the required lot area for 212 Peterson Street from 5000 square feet to 4500 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of an 800 square feet alley houses behind 214 Peterson Street. This appeal, together with appeal L U 2331, would allow 2 alley houses to be constructed behind 208 and 214 Peterson Street, rather than the one duplex that would be allowed without a variance. --- ! There is enough lot area to construct a duplex without the need for a variance. The Applicant originally submitted a development request for a duplex. However, after consideration by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) with input from the neighbors, it was decided that two small detached single-family homes would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Thus, since the current proposed does not increase the density beyond what would be allowed without a variance, the Applicant believes that the variance would result in development that is equal to or better than that which might otherwise occur. --- Staff comments: See comments for Appeal 2331. 1 Appeal 2333: --- 1124 Woodford Avenue --- Petitioner: Kendra Melson and Brenda Van Dyke, owners --- Zone: NCL --- Section 3.8.3(1) L --- The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building on the lot, instead of within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a massage therapy business to be conducted in the existing 10'x 20'former detached garage. --- The home is a small, two-bedroom home, with no extra space in the house which can be occupied by the business. There is no attached garage on this lot. if the garage were attached, a variance would not be required. --- Staff comments: This is a common request in the older neighborhoods, wherein many homes were constructed without an attached garage r Appeal 2334: --- 700 Colorado Street --- Petitioner: Mike Jones, owner --- Zone: NCM --- Section 4.7(E)(4) --- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Laurel Street from 15 feet to six inches in order to allow a two-car attached garage to be constructed on the east side .6 of the existing house. --- Please see petitioner's letter. In addition, the "contextual setback" exception allowed in Section 3.8.19(B) could be applied to this lot if it were not a corner lot. This exception would allow the proposed setback variance to be a reduction from 4.8 feet to six inches instead of from fifteen feet to six inches. Additionally, the addition will only extend two feet beyond the 1975 porch addition. --- Staff comments: None. 4 Appeal 2335: --- 110 North Sherwood Street --- Petitioner: Linda Ripley, owner --- Zone: NCM --- Section 4.7(E)(3) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to six feet in order to allow a 6' x 12'addition onto the north end of the existing one-story portion of the home. The east wall of the proposed addition will line up with the existing east wall of the home, which is already at a six foot setback from the rear property line. Therefore, the addition will will not be any closer to the rear lot line than the existing. --- The lot is very small, 62.5' x 57'. The proposed addition will comply with the side setback, and the lot area to floor area ratio will also be complied with. This is the only feasible location to construct the addition, and it will line up with the existing rear wall. --- Staff comments: Shallowness of a lot can be considered to be grounds for a hardship variance. The 62.5' depth of this lot is extremely shallow. U APPEAL 2331 &2332 I i Zoning Board of Appeals ' 210&212 Peterson St. April 12 r • AGENDA:- - 2331.210 Peterson St - • 2332-212 Peterson St • 2333-1124 Woodlord Ave. City of Fort Collins ��. - r ; �..�.......� 2334-700 Colorado St • 2335-1I0 K Sherwood St 4; yi V Behind this house at 208 Peterson St. Behind this house at 214 Peterson St.is is the proposed site of 210 Peterson St. rthe proposed site of 212 Peterson St. t . d T Proposed low s of 212(left)and 210 Peterson St betwedt aAty and existing dweMbtgs 1y P 1 I 44 9071 Wl M A. i M W-5i i . . - 5 " jilm 4F ryfryi� 0 1 i -7y 1. ��. I.1ArL,13`/} tie � f J �I Lyn. C k 1. 1 _ 17 Yy r. ^} . . . .. .. . .•. Elocation of the nvy home occupation. �. ..- 'L,3 3-f; 4 MOW APPEAL 2334 700 Colorado St. J'� Ilk ti LL is `����;r I H�f — ' �� -� a"'.��*•� 1 �' „ t r or.^=a .fir J_• Y^�-'1 e..-alws�-��� �'.+-,.r 1.trQ1_�ti'.'a.5��. - a w F IL 11 Proposed rear yard location of addition. = __ The arrow shows the curb cut for the proposed garage and driveway. It was -- recently completed during the street ? �e �ri Single-family residence to the east and left of 700 Colorado rehabGitation now occurring on E.Laurel ,� F, - St.The front property line is 20 feet behind the curb. z ; Mather picture of the same two properties. Based on the applicant's ROW chart(fig. 1)their front property lines begin 5� a few feet to the left of the fire hydrant. Single-family houses to the west of Colorado St.along E.Laurels St. Much of these houses'front yards are in the City ROW. North side of house where - addition is proposed. x —: . APPEAL 2335 110 N. Sherwood St. r Y - ••• I. ..(.ME the house extension. + j _ rah " :• -'� _ +.,.:4> "• a 1 - i d-s'T.+:s,T _f�i..`•'19.i'i.^�' �.�. +�..a..n w'� "�� �1 _ �� ti. ',G_- �`72} T,r F ir WWII