No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/11/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the October 9, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting —September 11, 2003 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Steve Remington Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Phone: (H) 223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday September 11, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall David Lingle Andy Miscio Steve Remington BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: William Stockover STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dickson made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 14, 2003, meeting. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed with Lingle and Miscio abstaining. Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2438—Approved Address: 1994 Kinnison Drive Petitioner: Robert Haas Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2 (D)(5) Background: The variance would allow a 1620 square foot detached accessory building to be built in the LMN Zoning District, instead of the 800 square foot maximum size allowed. The new building will be built in the same location as the previous detached building that was damaged in the March snow storm. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Specifically, this property was annexed into the City limits spring of 2003. The lot contains more than five acres and this structure would have been allowed to be constructed under the code and requirements of Larimer County. The existing garage was damaged in the snow storm in March of this year. The applicant did not realize that a structure of the size requested would not be allowed under the City's Land Use Code, and therefore did not look into building prior to annexation. Part of the structure will be for a personal -use shop that is currently located in the home. The remainder will be used for personal storage of items such as a lawn tractor and other yard implements, as well as for vehicles. Staff Comments: The intent of restricting the size of accessory buildings to 800 square feet is to ensure that, in "urban -type" residential zones, the building is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal building as required by the definition of accessory building in the Land Use Code. Limiting the size to 800 square feet also helps to limit the amount of building coverage that can occur on lots in urban -type residential neighborhoods. The proposed building footprint of the new building appears to be larger than the footprint of the existing home, so it would be difficult to conclude that the building is clearly incidental and subordinate to the home. However, the proposed size of the building is inconsequential when considered in relation to the size of the lot. A five acre lot is not a normal urban -type lot. Therefore, the Board may determine that the proposal promotes the purpose of the standard equally well as would a proposal that complies with the standard since the size of the building relative to the size of the lot is equal to an 800 square foot building on an average size residential lot. Staff Presentation: Barnes explained the ordinance and stated that the property was in the LMN zoning district. The property was approximately five acres. The residence is not a typical urban residential lot. Z�_ ._SGpte4nber Page 3 It is a rural size lot, although it is in the LMN zone as opposed to an urban estate zoning district. Barnes stated that the Code limits the size of accessory buildings to a maximum of 800 square feet. The intent of restricting the size of accessory or incidental buildings to 800 square feet is to ensure that in the urban type residential zones the building is incidental and subordinate to the principal residence that is on the property. Barnes referred board members to the site plan in their packets. The proposed garage was larger than the existing garage. The existing garage was damaged in the March snow storm. The building would be classified as a non -conforming building. Due to the natural disaster the Code would allow the building to be reconstructed to its original size, footprint, and location without the need for a variance. A variance was needed because the Applicant was requesting to build something larger than what was existing. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Kinnison Drive is on the south side of the property and Taft Hill Road is on the west. Barnes stated the property also has a couple of other out buildings. Barnes referred board members to the elevation drawings in their packets. Lingle asked staff that if the building had been built prior to annexation would there have been any reason that the City would not have annexed the property because of the existence of the larger building. Barnes replied no. Lingle asked how likely it was that the property would be subdivided in the future. Barnes stated that the property was one of the properties in the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation. The majority of the properties on the east side of Taft were placed in the LMN zoning district. The properties on the west side of Taft were placed in the urban estate zoning district. Barnes explained that the LMN zone allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre, so there is the potential that the property could be redeveloped. Miscio asked if the size of a structure determined whether it was considered a principle use structure. Barnes stated generally no. Barnes explained the difference between a principle use and an accessory use building. Hall asked if the property had been zoned urban estate would the proposed building be allowed. Barnes said that the Applicant would be allowed to have a 2500 square foot detached accessory building as a use by right. If the proposed building were larger than 2500 square feet a public review would be required. Applicant Particination Robert Haas, 1994 Kinnison Drive, addressed the Board. The house was built in 1960. The house has only one multi -purpose room (living/family room). The Applicant was strapped for space in the house. The Applicant has his shop in the basement and would like to move his shop to the proposed detached building. The proposal would allow the Applicant to have a family room. Haas stated that the new garage will extend 20 feet further south than the existing. The entrance will remain the same and no additional drive -way will be added to accommodate the new garage. The Applicant stated he was eliminating drive -way to add garage. Haas explained that part of the garage would be for a shop and the other part would be for storage. Page 4 There was a discussion held regarding which standard the Applicant wanted to use for his variance request. Board Discussion: Remington asked staff if there was be a restriction on the number of out buildings that could be built if they were less than 800 square feet. Barnes said not in the LMN zoning district because there is not a lot area to floor area ratio standard. Barnes stated the ordinance began in June and he explained the Code change. Lingle was in favor of the appeal with staff's comments regarding the equal to or better than standard. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2438 based on the equal to or better than standard. Dickson stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Dickson said the general purpose of the standard was not to have out buildings that are larger than the house on smaller lots. The Applicant's lot was five acres. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington, Dickson, Donahue, and Lingle. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2439—Approved with conditions. Address: 1409 North Lemay Avenue Petitioner: Daniel Golub Zone: RL Section: 3.5.2 (D)(5) Back ound: The variance would allow two detached buildings to be larger than the maximum 800 square feet allowed for detached buildings in the RL zone. Specifically, the variance would allow two buildings that were damaged by the March 2003 snow storm to be reconstructed at a larger size than existed prior to the snowstorm. One building is proposed to be rebuilt at 7200 square feet, instead of the original 4000 square feet. This building will be used to house a car collection and exercise equipment. The other building will consist of rebuilding a portion of the damaged building and constructing an additional 1800 square feet onto the rebuilt portion. This building is used to house farm equipment and tools. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. fn addition, both of the buildings were nonconforming buildings prior to the snow storm. They can be rebuilt to their original size without a variance. However, this property is 4.25 acres in size and has historically been used for agricultural uses Zc_.-September-14,2-0 3 — — Page 5 and a commercial greenhouse. The applicant continues these types of uses and believes that since the buildings need to be rebuilt anyway, this is the appropriate time to make them more suitable for the activities that are conducted on the property. Staff Comments: This is similar to Appeal 2438 in that the previously existing buildings were damaged by the snow storm and the lot far exceeds the size of the average residential lot. The proposed buildings on this property are much larger than the house, so it is difficult to conclude that they would be incidental and subordinate to the house. If the Board finds no hardship, then the variance request will need to be considered based on the equal to or better than standard as explained in Appeal 2438. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that the appeal was similar to the one previously heard. Barnes referred board members to the site plans in their packets. Building A is the site of a former greenhouse. Building A was 4000 square feet and the Applicant proposed that the building be 7200 square feet. The Applicant wanted to rebuild Building B, plus add an addition. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property has two entrances off of North Lemay Avenue —a circular drive. Barnes showed where Building A and Building B were on the property. There are items scattered around the property such as a RV, bus, etc. Barnes showed where the proposed building and addition would be constructed. The property has a lot of trees. Lingle asked if the commercial greenhouse would be allowed in the RL zone. Barnes replied that when the property was annexed into the City the greenhouse became a non -conforming use, which means the use can continue on forever as long as it is not abandoned for 12 consecutive months. The abandonment period has taken effect even prior to the snow damage. The Applicant has lost non -conforming entitlement to use a greenhouse. The proposed building that would be constructed there would not be a greenhouse type of building. Lingle verified that the proposed building was to be a pre-engineered steel building. Lingle asked if that type of structure was allowed in the RL zoning district. Barnes replied that in the RL zone there are not any building design standards except that the Applicant would not be allowed to put up bright, reflective material. Hall asked if the RL zone was included in staffs June revision of the Code. Barnes replied yes and stated that the RL zone was one of the subdivisions that was silent on the size of detached accessory buildings. Applicant Participation: Dan Golub, 1409 Lindenmeier, addressed the Board. Golub gave the history of the property. He purchased the property in 2001 and he was aware that the property had recently been annexed 7D A Q Page 6 into the City. The property was abandoned for several years and the buildings on the property were in disrepair. Golub explained his renovations. Golub works on cars. Miscio asked how Golub intended to use the buildings such as commercial, business, etc. Golub stated no. Golub is retired and likes to work with his hands. He does not intend on using the buildings for commercial uses just his hobbies. In favor of the appeal: Germaine Salazar addressed the Board. He is a friend of Mr. Golub. Salazar was in favor of the appeal. Salazar and Golub work together on cars. Salazar stated that it was impossible for Golub to store all his machinery and equipment under the current conditions. In opposition to the appeal: Janet Gustafson, 1330 Colter Street, addressed the Board. She lives adjacent to the property_ Gustafson was concerned with the 7200 square foot proposed building. Gustafson stated that Golub has improved the property, but there is still a lot of equipment that is left outside. Gustafson was also concerned with the ability to sell surrounding homes. Gustafson's main concern was the size. Barnes explained that the previous building can be rebuilt and was 100 feet in length and the proposed building will be 120 feet in length. The proposed height will remain the same. There was a discussion held regarding the amount of vehicles stored on the property. Hall asked if trees would help alleviate her concerns. Gustafson stated that trees would be wonderful, and noted again that Golub has improved the property. Dickson asked staff if there were any regulations regarding visual clutter. Barnes replied that there are not any regulations regarding clutter in the Land Use Code, although there are City nuisance ordinances that deal with storage of inoperable vehicles, weeds, etc. Barnes reminded the Board that they could condition the appeal that the vehicles had to be stored indoors. Golub stated that he appreciated his neighbor's concerns. Golub pointed out that the greenhouse had been there for many years. Golub reiterated his renovation efforts. Golub was agreeable to planting trees. There was a discussion held regarding which vehicles would be stored indoors. Lingle stated he was not concerned about the size or footprint of the proposed building. Lingle asked Golub why the structure had to be 24 feet tall. Golub responded that the existing building was 24 feet tall. Golub stated the following reasons for wanting the building to be 24 feet tall: (1) loading wood; (2) air circulation; and (3) the previous building was 24 feet tall. Lingle remarked that the drawings do not match Golub's proposal. Lingle asked the Applicant why he proposed a metal building and suggested that the Applicant blend the proposed building 7�..Sp#eealeA-14—,2©91 Page 7 by adding wood cladding and a conventional roof. Golub explained the advantage of using metal. Remington asked if the proposed building was going to be one-story. Golub replied yes. Remington then asked the Applicant why the structure could not be 16 feet tall. Golub stated that he does not have a definite plan because he had not purchased it yet. Golub said the sides of the building will be 16 feet and will go to 24 feet. Golub stated that he wanted a steep roof. Board Discussion Miscio stated that he felt the height of the building was not distracting. Miscio felt that Golub lived in a rural environment. Miscio stated that his biggest concern had been addressed with vehicle storage. Miscio stated that he was in favor of the appeal. Lingle stated that he had mixed feelings. Lingle did not have any issues with the size, although he felt the height was excessive. Lingle wanted the drawing to be corrected to show 16 feet, if the appeal were to be approved. Lingle had issues with the material of the building being metal. Lingle stated that he would abstain from voting on the appeal. Remington asked the board if they wanted to place conditions on the approval having to do with the following: trees and vegetation, vehicle storage, correcting the drawing, and having the grass and vegetation mowed. The Board held a discussion regarding conditions and came to the conclusion that the conditions were enforced by other regulations with the exception of vehicle storage. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2439 based on the equal to or better than standard. Miscio stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Miscio stated that the general purpose of the standard was to maintain an incidental use to the existing use, and the proposal satisfied this requirement. Miscio stated that there was an existing greenhouse and the Applicant has the right to replace the building due to the March snow storm. Miscio felt the proposal improved the property by storing vehicles and equipment under a roof as opposed to leaving items out in the open. Miscio placed the condition that all vehicles that are owned and operated, or he is working on, equipment (tanks and barrels) by Mr. Golub be placed and stored within the proposed structure. Miscio also included that the sidewalls of the building be 16 feet with a rise of no more than 24 feet. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall and Dickson. Nays: Remington and Donahue. Abstain: Lingle. 5. APPEAL NO. 2440—Approved. Address: 810 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: David Thompson Page 8 Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback from the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.97 feet in order to allow the existing shed addition on the rear of the home to be removed and a new 19.5' x 26', one-story addition to be constructed in its place. The new west wall is in the same location as the existing west wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing shed addition is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. The property is a locally designated historic structure. Placing the new wall in the same location as the existing wall would satisfy the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and identify the new area as an addition. If the new wall were moved further to the east, the functionality of the interior floor space would be reduced. The new construction is proposed to be located at the setback that already exists, and the original house is setback even closer to the west lot line. Therefore, the new wall will be further from the lot line than the remainder of the house. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes referred board members to the letter from Historic Preservation that indicated their support of the appeal. The letter also noted that the Landmark Preservation Commission approved the design on August 13, 2003. The existing shed addition is currently offset from the west lot line and is 3.97 feet from the lot line. The new construction would be larger and come out another ten feet into the backyard. Remington asked staff if conflicting standards constituted a hardship (Secretary of Interior and the City of Fort Collins Zoning requirements). Eckman replied yes due to the use symmetry. Applicant Participation: David Thompson, 810 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Thompson stated that he did not have more information to add. Thompson stated that he bought the house a few years ago and at the time it was not listed as a historic home. The current addition has a slope of one - foot which is useless. The Applicant wanted more useable living space. Thompson has collaborated with the Historic Preservation Department to come up with an appropriate design. Thompson stated that functionality of the interior space would be destroyed in order to comply with the zoning requirements. tir,._ _-Sept r-t t-,2003 --- Page 9 Board Discussion: Lingle was in favor of the appeal. Donahue asked if the width of the lot could be used as a hardship. Barnes stated that it is 40 feet in width, which could be considered narrow. Hall stated that the appeal could be granted under the hardship standard. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2440. Remington stated that approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Remington based the approval on the hardship standard for the following reasons: (1) setback requirements in the zoning district; (2) narrow lot; and (3) requirements from Historic Preservation as outlined in Carol Turner's letter created a conflict, which is an exceptional situation. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington, Dickson, Donahue, and Lingle. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 244 1 —Approved. Address: 2731 Granada Hills Drive Petitioner: Richard Taranow Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to allow a second floor addition over the existing garage and a roof overhang to project 6 feet beyond the front of the existing garage. The new construction will be about 24 feet behind the curb. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed setback from the street is consistent with the setback of other homes in the subdivision. Normally, a 20 foot setback results in a 24 foot setback from the back of the sidewalk. There is no sidewalk in this cul-de-sac, so the proposed 24 foot setback from the street is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Staff Comments: If there is a hardship, staff believes it would have to be based on the unusual situation of the property line being so far behind the curb and the lot having no sidewalk. Under the equal to or better than standard, the Board may determine that the 24' setback from the street is equal to the street setback that occurs in normal situations. Staff Presentation: Page 10 Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the property was in the Eldorado Springs PUD and south of Lake Sherwood. The lot is in a cul-de-sac and does not have any sidewalk. The proposal was to build a second -story addition. Bames explained the situation regarding the property lines. Hall asked that if the lot line were at the curb would the Applicant need the variance. Barnes replied yes and stated that a 20-foot setback is required. Applicant Participation: Richard Taranow, 2731 Granada Hills Drive, addressed the Board. Taranow has lived in the house for over 18 years and was surprised to find out that the property line was set in further. Taranow stated that other properties in his neighborhood are consistently 27 feet from the front of the house to the curb. Board Discussion: Miscio asked what the intent was for a setback. Miscio felt that the Applicant was at a disadvantage. Barnes stated that it was unusual for the property line not to follow the curb. Lingle made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2441 based on the hardship standard. Lingle stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Lingle stated that there was an exceptional physical condition with the way the property line adjacent to the cul-de- sac was platted which makes a hardship for the Applicant to comply with the front -yard setback requirements. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington, Dickson, Donahue, and Lingle. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2442—Approved with a condition. Address: 1436 Hiwan Court Petitioner: Brent Hisgen Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow a patio cover (lattice cover) to be constructed over the existing concrete patio slab. The cover is already constructed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Page 11 The property backs up to an open space. So only one adjacent property is affected. There has been an existing patio at this same setback. If the posts were moved 1.5 feet in from the edge of the concrete slab, then the code would be met since an overhang is allowed to encroach up to 2 feet into a required setback. Moving the posts really would not change much of anything. The cover could remain in its present location. Staff Comments: As indicated in the statement of hardship, the actual roof structure complies with the code with regards to distance from the lot line to the edge of the roof. If the posts were moved 1.5 feet, then there would be no violation, but the roof would still be the same so the change would be very minimal. There doesn't appear to be a hardship, so the Board would need to find that this is "equal to or better than" in order to approve a variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted that in board member packets there is a letter from the adjacent property owners who are most affected by the patio cover, Fred and Sarahmae Ockers, indicated their support for the variance request. The property is in the RL zone and a five-foot setback is required. The open space that the property backs up to is Southridge Greens Golf Course. The trellis is setback three and a half feet. Lingle asked staff if the issue was the location of the columns. Barnes replied yes. Applicant Participation: Brent Hisgen, 2607 Featherstar Way, addressed the Board. Hisgen was the contractor who built the lattice cover. Hisgen stated that he did not realize a permit was needed for a lattice shade structure. Hisgen received a stop work order. Hisgen stated that there is not a way to move the posts in without mining the entire structure. Lingle asked if the project was finished due to the stop work order. Hisgen stated yes. Board Discussion: A discussion was held regarding if the request was a hardship or an equal to better than. Remington asked the Board if they would be in favor of conditioning the appeal not to allow the structure to be enclosed. The remainder of the board members agreed with the condition. Bames gave the Board his recommendations. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2442 based on the equal to or better than standard. Remington stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Remington said that the purpose of the side -yard setback standard was to allow space between properties, light, ventilation, and air circulation. Remington stated that the proposal complies with the standard equally well than a proposal which complies for the following reasons: (1) property backs -up to an open space; and (2) the structure as it exists is an open structure all the way around that allows for light and Page 12 ventilation. Remington placed the following condition on the variance that the variance is for this particular structure and any modifications to the structure (specifically to an enclosure) would need another variance request. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington, Dickson, Donahue, and Lingle. Nays: None. 8. Other Business Barnes reviewed the appeal regarding 661 Parliament Court from the August meeting. Barnes stated that the louvers came out, but the posts are still there. Barnes read the letter from the neighbor because he wanted it on record that the process did not work and that he was unhappy that the posts did not come down. Remington asked staff if the City was planning on regulating metal buildings. Barnes said he did not believe so. Meeting Steve Re ourned at 10:43 a.m. Chairperson /� Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Petitioner's Letter A I'-lotY it) L August 14, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins 291 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Sus: My name is Daniel Golub. I live on a property located at 1409 North Lemay Avenue. During the last big winter storm, I lost two buildings. The first one was a greenhouse measuring 40'x100% v4iich I would ffice to rebuild as a 60' x 120' building, with the original height of 24 feet. The other building was 54' x 233', and was attached to the barn. I would like to enlarge this building on the side to a 60' x 34' so that I can accomodate it it my agricultural equipment. I feel that I have the support of my neighbors for this project. The structure will be very pleasant, more so than the one I am replacing, and it will be mostly concealed by vegetation. I am available for any questions you may have regarding this prgiect, and I hope that I will receive a favorable response from the Board. You can reach me at 498-0904, cell phone 308-2470. I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, and remain M.D.