Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/2003 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday,April 10,2003 Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the February 13, 2003 Meeting Appeal: 2414 1821 Rolling Gate Rd The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in order to allow a 52 square foot, 8'9"tall storage shed to be allowed to remain at its current location adjacent to the rear patio slab. If the shed were 9"shorter, a variance would not be required. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Petitioner: Peter Springberg ZoningDistrict RL Appeal: 2415 1504 W Mountain Ave The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 1.9 feet in order to allow the rear 8 feet of the east wall of the home to be replaced, and a new roof constructed over a part of the rear portion of the home. The east wall is already at a 1.9 foot setback, so the new construction would be in the same location as the existing. This remodel would result in the old, enclosed porch at the rear of the home being converted to an expanded kitchen area. Code Sections: 4.6(E)(4) Petitioner: Lon Miller ZoningDistrict NCL Appeal: 2416 1833 E HARMONY RD The variance would increase the sign allowance for the property at 1833 East Harmony Road from 457 square feet to 943 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the east facing tenants to place signs on the east wall facing the Harmony Village Shopping Center. Code Sections: 3.8.7(D)(6) Petitioner: Gregg Glick ZoningDistrict HC Appeal. 2417 630 E Locust St. The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the north lot line from 15'to 5' in order to allow the construction of a detached, one-car garage. The garage is 14'x 30', and one-story in height. Code Sections: 4.7(E)(3) Petitioner: Monica Engle ZoningDistrict NCM Appeal.• 2418 1001 Akin Ave The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback from 15'to 13'4" along the north property line on Akin Avenue, and would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.75 to 1, in order to allow the construction of a two-story addition between the existing home and the existing garage. The proposed addition will attach the two existing structures. The addition will bring the total floor area of the building to 2470 square feet(including garage). Code Sections: 4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1) Petitioner: Terry Hubbard ZoningDistrict NCL Appeal: 2419 922 W Oak St The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback along the west lot line from 5'to 4' in order to allow a second story addition. The west wall of the new addition will be 4'taller than the existing west wall, and will be constructed directly on top of the existing wall. The variance will also reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.5 to 1 in order to allow a total building square footage of 2,200 square feet(including the existing garage), instead of the 1,867 square feet allowed. Code Sections: 4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1) Petitioner: Craftsmen Builders ZoningDistrict NCL Other Business: f Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, April 10, 2003 Appeal 2414 Address 1821 Rolling Gate Rd Petitioner Peter Springberg Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(d) e east lot The variance would reduce the require Description a 52 square side yard afoock t}8n9'tta11 storage Description line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in order to shed to be allowed to remain at its current would Hoon lt be required.rear patio slab. if the shed were 9 shorter, a the concrete patio slab,with the Hardship The shed was constructed directly abutting patio slab. The homeowner's floor of the shed level with the floor of the p roved association reviewed the plans prior to construction, and it was approved with the condition that the roof pitch ed can at h tor by re hoduc ng the height of thebw 11s. lowered 9" by changing the roof pitchneed to be if the wall height is lowered, then the fuilcult to enter size door V,yand more difficult tolace with a shorter door, making it more d'ff store or retrieve equipment. The shed incfront onnot f a window. The ear yard s the patio because it woe moved to the west side of uld be directly very shallow, so if the shed is required o� the rear of the slab hen a rear a shed of this height setback variance would be Staff Comments None. 6 Appeal 2415 Address 1504 W Mountain Ave Petitioner Lon Miller Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(4) Description The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 1.9 feet in order to allow the rear 8 feet of the east wall of the home to be replaced, and a new roof constructed over a part of the rear portion of the home. The east wall is already at a 1.9 foot setback, so the new construction would be in the same location as the existing. This remodel would result in the old, enclosed porch at the rear of the home being converted to an expanded kitchen area. Hardship The existing kitchen is along the same side of the home as the enclosed porch, and it is the area where a kitchen expansion would naturally occur. If the new wall is required to comply with the setback, then there would be no way to expand the kitchen. The new wall will not add any extra depth to the home, so the degree of existing nonconformity will not be increased. Staff Comments Even though the new wall is at the same setback as the existing wall, a portion of the wall will be taller than the existing. Therefore, it may be difficult to apply the "equal to or better than" standard since it could be construed that the existing wall is less intrusive since it's lower than the proposed. The Board may need to determine this appeal based on the hardship standard. f I � ..p Appeal 2416 Address 1833 E HARMONY RD Petitioner Gregg Glick Zoning District HC Section 3.8.7(D)(6) Description The variance would increase the sign allowance for the property at 1833 East Harmony Road from 457 square feet to 943 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the east facing tenants to place signs on the east wall facing the Harmony Village Shopping Center. Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments This building may be at a disadvantage when it comes to the sign code due to its orientation and the changing character of the tenant mix of the building and surrounding property. If the Board decides in favor of this appeal, staff recommends that a condition be placed on the variance that limits the G amount of signage on the north wall facing Harmony to no more than would normally be allowed by the sign code. In this case, that means that no more b ( than 457 square feet of signage be along the north. Appeal 2417 Address 630 E Locust St. Petitioner Monica Engle Zoning District NCM Section 4.7(E)(3) Description The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the north lot line from 15' to 5' in order to allow the construction of a detached, one-car garage. The garage is 14' x 30', and one-story in height. Hardship The lot was split-off from the original lot about 50 years ago. Therefore, the lot no longer has alley access and has no driveway. Consequently, the only parking area is on either Stover Street or Locust Street. Having a parking area on the property would reduce the congestion on the street. The petitioner desires to construct a garage in order to be able to have sheltered parking off of the street. The home has no basement, so the garage would add needed storage space in addition to vehicle parking. There is a large, existing deck on the rear of the home which would have to be removed in order to construct the garage in compliance with the 15' setback. The lot is shallower (100') then most of the lots in the neighborhood. Most of the garages in these older neighborhoods are detached, so the proposed garage would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff Comments None. V a Appeal 2418 Address 1001 Akin Ave Petitioner Terry Hubbard Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1) Description The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback from 15'to 13' 4" along the north property line on Akin Avenue, and would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.75 to 1, in order to allow the construction of a two-story addition between the existing home and the existing garage. The proposed addition will attach the two existing structures. The addition will bring the total floor area of the building to 2470 square feet (including garage). Hardship The proposed addition will line up with two existing bay windows. Therefore it will not encroach into the setback any more than the structure already does. Also, a proposed new entry will be located next to the garage and the protrusion of the structure is required to allow people entry into the home without having to go through the garage or enter too close to the proposed stairs. Otherwise they would have to go around to the other side of the home for access. The addition is proposed due to the size of the home and there only being one bedroom. The new second story will be for a second bedroom and the new first floor will be additional living space. The proposed construction also creates a recessed garage door, which complies with the garage door standards in todays code. The proposed lot line adjustment has no bearing on this variance request and the lot line adjustment proposal is contingent on the approval of this variance. Staff Comments The setback reduction is along the street side of this corner lot. The Board has used the "equal to or better than standard" on several other similar requests on corner lots. As stated by the petitioner, the new wall will result in a recessed garage will actually bring the existing non-conforming situation into line with the intent of the Code. It may be more difficult for the Board to apply the "equal to or better than" standard to the lot area/floor area reduction. _0 Appeal 2419 Address 922 W Oak St Petitioner Craftsmen Builders Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1) Description The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 4' in order to allow a second story addition. The west wall of the new addition will be 4'taller than the existing west wall, and will be constructed directly on top of the existing wall. The variance will also reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.5 to 1 in order to allow a total building square footage of 2,200 square feet (including the existing garage), instead of the 1,867 square feet allowed. Hardship The existing west wall is already at a 4' setback. The new wall needs to be constructed on top of the existing wall. The height of the wall will only be increased by 4'. The size of the addition needs to be large enough to accommodate all 3 bedrooms on the same floor. Staff Comments None. Q C 9-D 0 Other Business - The chairperson of the Board will introduce a motion to reconsider the vote that was taken on February 13, 2003 regarding Appeal#2410 for the property at 700 E. Locust Street. Specifically, the variance requested would reduce the required rear-yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet, and reduce the required west side setback setback along Stover Street from 15 feet to 12.33 feet, in order to allow a 224 square foot second floor addition to be constructed on the existing 576 square foot detached garage. The new second story rear wall would be constructed directly on top of the existing rear wall, and the new second story west wall will be 10 feet further from Stover Street than the existing first story west wall. At the February 13, 2003 meeting, the ZBA voted 4-2 to deny the request. - Staff will explain the current protocol regarding site inspections conducted by boardmembers. rk v-Q' t�r y a � Community Planning and Environmental Services Building and Zoning Department Citv of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 2003 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator RE: April 10th "other business" Hopefully you all noticed the "other business" items on the April 101h agenda that you just received in your packets. I am sending you the enclosed email from Steve Remington regarding the possible motion to reconsider the vote of the 700 Locust Street appeal. I also want to take this opportunity to explain beforehand that a member may vote in favor of granting the motion to reconsider the vote without being bound to vote one way or another on any resulting motion that might be made to approve or deny the variance. In other words, just because you may vote to approve the motion to reconsider, you don't have to vote to approve the actual variance request. The motion to reconsider and the actual variance request are two separate issues. 281 North College Avenue • PO -. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760 • FAX (97/0)224-6134 From: <steve_rem ington@agilent.com> To: <pbarnes@fcgov.com> Date: 4/3/03 11:07AM Subject: Re: Motion to reconsider Hi Peter, I wanted to write you with a couple of thoughts around my intention to present a motion to re-consider variance request#2410. Feel free to pass this message on to other members as you see fit. After our February meeting, I have two main concerns regarding this appeal. First, it has come to my attention that the applicant came prepared to discuss the appeal under the"hardship"standard. I believe the Board quickly found (and I agree)that a hardship did not exist in this case. We changed our discussion to the"equal to or better than" requirement. I have been told that the applicant was not aware nor prepared to have this discussion. I believe we owe it to the applicant to hear their arguements under the"equal to or better than"standard. In addition, later in the same meeting (#2412)we approved what seemed to me to be a very similar case with respect to the property on LaPorte & Grandview. The owner indicated that they had options to build on the main level in front of the house, but wanted to build a second story. We eventually found that this did meet the"equal to or better than" standard by a unanamous vote. We may choose to uphold our previous decision, or the Board may choose to not hear the variance request again at all. However, I want to make the motion because I feel we owe the applicant the opportunity to present their case under the"equal to or better than"standard. I also feel that we need to be clear if we feel this property is different than the LaPorte property, why that is the case. Thanks Steve Remington