HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/12/2002Chairperson: Steve Remington 9 Phone: (M 223-7138
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday September 12, 2002, in
the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Donahue
David Lingle
Andy Miscio
Steve Remington
William Stockover
Diane Shannon
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:
Stockover made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 11, 2002, meeting. Lingle
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
3. APPEAL NO. 2388 — Approved.
Address: 328 Park Street
Petitioner: Sibyl Stork
Zone: NCM
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 2
Section: 3.8.3(1)
Background:
The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in a detached building,
rather than entirely within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing
detached building at the rear of the lot to be used as an art studio. Paintings and drawings would
be drawn in the building, but no retail sales would occur on the premises.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The home is very small, only 700 square feet, with no basement. Therefore, there is no room in
the house for this activity. If the garage were attached to the home, a variance would not be
required.
Staff Comments:
It is not uncommon for the Board to hear requests to allow home occupation activities in
existing, detached buildings in the older neighborhoods. This home, like many others in the
neighborhood, does not have an attached garage. Homeowners in newer neighborhoods that do
have attached garages can convert their garage to a home occupation area without the need for a
variance. The Board has normally used the "hardship" criteria when considering this type of
variance, finding that the unique situatation is that the home does not have an attached garage
that can be converted, and that if the garage were attached, then a variance would not be needed.
Letters from Arbie Rogers at 326 Park Street, Karen Cagle at 323 Park Street, and WM Timpson
328 Park Street were read in support of the appeal.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Bames stated the home at 328 Park Street does
not have an attached garage. Barnes noted the home occupation ordinance requiries that all
aspects of a home occupation activity be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit. Barnes
said the Board has seen this situation several times.
Applicant Participation:
Sibyl Stork, 328 Park Street, addressed the Board. Stork stated she bought the property three
years ago. She was informed that she needed a variance to paint in her garage legally. She felt
her home occupation would not impact the neighborhood.
Remington asked the Applicant if she received deliveries pertaining to her home occupation.
Applicant Stork replied no. Remington asked Applicant Stork regarding her holding art classes.
Stork replied that there is a possibility that she would teach three or four people.
In Support of the Appeal:
Paul Ostrof spoke in support of the appeal.
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 3
Board Discussion:
Miscio was in favor of granting of the appeal. Remington stated that the Board has done these in
the past under the hardship standard since the Applicant would not need a variance if the garage
were attached. Remington wanted the Board to put the following conditions on the approval: (1)
for the specific use of an art studio; and (2) and that the approval be specific to this owner.
Donahue made a motion to approve appeal 2388 based on the hardship standard that if the garage
were attached, a variance would not be required. Donahue placed the following conditions on
the approval: (1) approval was for an art studio; and (2) approval was for this owner only.
Donahue noted that there was no detriment to the public good. Stockover seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, Remington, Lingle and Donahue.
Nays: None.
4. APPEAL NO. 2389 —Approved with conditions.
Address:
912 Belvedere Court
Petitioner:
Matt Kaskell
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D)(2)(C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for the recently
completed single family home on this lot. Specifically, the variance would allow a portion of the
covered front porch and a portion of the comer of the garage to encroach into the required 20-
foot setback. The comer of the porch is setback 15 feet from the front lot line, and the corner of
the garage is setback 16 feet from the front lot line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
There is a large ditch in the rear portion of this lot, so there is no back yard behind the home,
resulting in the home being pushed as far forward as possible. The person staking out the home
mistakenly used the inside edge of the public sidewalk as the property line, but the property line
is actually several feet behind the walk.
Staff Comments:
It might be difficult to apply the hardship criteria to this request since the "difficulties" created
by the misplacement of the home are the result of an act by the applicant. (Even though the
setback violation was not created intentionally, it is still a self-imposed hardship). However, if
the Board determines that the proposal does not promote the general purpose of the setback
standard equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard, then the
variance can only be approved by finding that there is some hardship criteria. The Board may
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 4
want to consider that (1) only a small portion of the front porch and a comer of the garage
encroach into the setback, rather than the entire house frontage; (2) the front lot line is irregularly
shaped; (3) that there is an open space area abutting the west side of the lot; and (4) that there is a
ditch along the rear of the lot.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted that the house has already been
constructed. Barnes stated a 20-foot front yard setback requirement is required. Barnes referred
boardmembers to the site plan in their packets. Barnes noted a small portion of the front porch
and the comer of the garage is in the required setback. Barnes stated this was the last lot to be
constructed in the development. Barnes gave a summary of the surrounding properties.
Remington asked staff what the status was for the property. Barnes replied the home has been
completed and, the contractor had the final building inspections, but the contractor is waiting to
receive the certificate of occupancy. Remington asked staff what the intent was for a front yard
setback requirement. Barnes replied the front yard setback requirement is intended to address
streetscape issues to prevent houses from crowding a street --creating a tunnel effect. Barnes
stated the intent is also to make sure that houses have adequate length in the driveway to park
cars without cars hanging over the sidewalk. Remington asked if the distance was known
between the sidewalk and the garage. Barnes replied that it is twenty feet to the sidewalk.
Miscio stated that the intent was satisfied due to the distance between the sidewalk and the
garage. Remington asked if the City was awaiting the outcome of the appeal to issue a certificate
of occupancy. Barnes stated yes.
Applicant Participation:
Matt Kaskell, 5201 Stillwater Creek Court, addressed the Board. Kaskell noted that the way the
house currently sits on the lot fits the neighborhood. Kaskell said in the backyard the foundation
is close to a ditch. The ditch is for subdivision drainage.
Lingle stated that the columns on the front porch are decorative, and asked about the room in the
corner. Applicant Kaskell responded that it was a closet with one window. Remington asked
when construction began on the house. Applicant Kaskell said seven months ago.
Board Discussion:
Lingle stated there are not any neighbors objecting to the appeal, and that the encroachment
occurred in an open area. Lingle felt the impact of the garage was minimal. Lingle was in favor
of approving the appeal. Lingle wanted the Board to consider the condition that the porch not be
enclosed. Miscio agreed with Lingle. Stockover wanted the Board to add the finding that the
intent of the code is being met by the property line being behind the sidewalk. Remington felt
there was not a hardship, but stated the property contained some unique features that the Board
may want to consider. The Board was concerned about setting a precedent.
Barnes commented that the property line behind the sidewalk was not unique, and was common
in the RL zone.
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 5
Miscio asked what the contractor would need to do with the property if the request was denied.
Barnes replied that any portion of the structure that is closer than 20 feet to the lot line would
have to be removed. Miscio felt that was impractical. Barnes noted that economics was not
grounds for a hardship. Donahue stated he was not in support of the appeal. Donahue agreed
with the garage not being detrimental, but felt the corner column on the front porch encroached
into the streetscape setback. Stockover was concerned with setting a precedent, but did not have
a problem with the encroachment area due to it being a minor feature. Stockover stated that if
the columns were removed, it would ruin the architectural appearance of the house. Remington
made a motion to approve appeal 2389. Remington stated approval was not detrimental to the
public good. Remington stated the purpose of the front yard setback standard is met by: (1) the
property providing an appropriate streetscape; (2) that the actual wall of the house on the comer
encroaches a couple of inches while the rest of the encroachment is posts and portico; and (3)
that there is adequate parking in driveway. Remington noted the shape of the lot and the curved
street. Remington conditioned the approval that the front porch not be enclosed. Miscio
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, Remington, and Lingle.
Nays: Donahue.
5. APPEAL NO. 2390 —Approved with conditions.
Address:
4241 Breakwater Court
Petitioner:
Kevin Heame
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D)(2) (C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the northwest lot line from 15
feet to 5 feet in order to allow a covered porch to be constructed over a sunken patio that is
planned for the new home to be constructed on this lot.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The lot is an irregularly -shaped flag lot, which requires that the home be constructed at a larger
front yard setback than would normally be required. The lot actually has two lot lines that could
be considered "rear" lot lines, and the 15-foot setback is complied with on one of them. The
home itself will comply with the required setback. The variance is only for a porch cover.
Reduced rear setbacks have previously been allowed in this subdivision, so this would be similar
to those modifications.
Staff Comments:
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 6
The other reduced rear setbacks were approved under the pre -Land Use Code regulations, which
allowed the setbacks from this PUD to be varied administratively. Therefore, public hearing
variances were not required. Nevertheless, a number of homes have already been constructed in
this subdivision with smaller setbacks than would normally be required. The rear lot line of this
lot abuts a landscape open space, which results in the rear lot line being 35 feet from the street
along the back of the lot. Therefore, the Board may determine that the "equal to or better than"
standard can be used. Specifically, the purpose of the rear setback standard is to ensure an
adequate distance between structures and properties in order to enhance such things as privacy,
light and ventilation. Therefore, the Board may find that the proposal as submitted will promote
the general purpose of the standard equally well as a proposal which complies with the standard
because: (1) The rear lot line abuts an open space rather than another residential lot, and (2) the
part of the structure that will encroach is a covered porch that contains no wall enclosures and
thereby has minimal visual impacts.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal and noted the house was under construction.
Barnes stated the building permit was approved without a sunken porch in the back. The
contractors want to build a cover over the porch, and the proposed porch cover would not
comply with the rear setback requirement. If the variance is approved, the contractor will have
to amend the building permit. Barnes referred boardmembers to their packet information.
Barnes stated the open space was on both sides of the house on Boardwalk and Breakwater. The
property is not abutting another lot or a street. Barnes noted the property was the last lot to be
built. The proposed patio would be five feet from the rear lot line.
Applicant Participation:
Kevin Hearne, 2426 Rock Creek Drive, addressed the Board. Applicant Hearne added that due
to the shape of the lot, the house had to be pushed back almost 50 feet from the property line.
The porch posts are going to be ten feet back from the rear property line, although he asked for
five feet for some flexibility. Applicant Heame noted the porch will add an aesthetic quality to
the house breaking up the rear roof line.
Lingle questioned the Applicant regarding the placement of the posts. Remington asked the
Applicant whether he needed a five-foot variance or a seven -eight foot variance. Applicant
Hearne responded a seven -eight foot variance would be acceptable. Barnes informed the Board
that they should measure the setback requirement from the eave overhang.
Donahue questioned the Applicant regarding drainage for the sunken patio. The Applicant
responded that there was a drain in the patio, and there will be another separate drain in the
stairwell. Both drains will drain to a deep sump pit inside the basement.
Board Discussion:
Stockover was in favor of the appeal. Remington asked staff if there were other seven -to -eight
foot setbacks in the neighborhood. Barnes replied the Applicant has stated in his hardship
statement that reduce rear setbacks have previously been allowed in this subdivision, and some
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 7
have been in the five -to -eight foot range. These setbacks were approved under the pre -Land Use
Code, where setback variances were approved through a minor amendment without a public
hearing. Remington was in favor of the appeal. Lingle stated the visual impact was minimal due
to the porch cover being open, and wanted the Board to consider the condition that the porch not
be enclosed. There was a discussion held regarding the open space. Stockover made a motion to
approve appeal 2390. Stockover stated the general purpose of the standard is being met by: (1)
the lot line abuts a 35-foot open space between the lot line and Breakwater Drive; (2) the porch is
a covered open porch and not a roofline covering a room or part of the building; and (3) the
variance request is not detrimental to the public good. Stockover placed a condition on the
approval that the porch not be enclosed, and that the variance be changed from fifteen feet to
seven feet. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, Remington, Lingle and Donahue.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO.2391 — Approved with conditions.
Address: 3315 Snowbrush Court
Petitioner: Laurie and Tyler Ellendorf
Zone: RL
Section: 4.3(D)(2)(C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 11.33 feet in order to
allow a trellis cover to be constructed over a portion of the existing patio deck.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshi
There was a possible miscommunication between the Applicant and the Building Department as
to whether or not a permit was required. Therefore, the owners constructed the trellis without a
permit and the setback problem was discovered after -the -fact. The property backs up to an open
space. Therefore, the intent of the Code is met.
Staff Comments:
The Board may determine that the "equal to or better than" standard applies in this instance. The
purpose of the rear setback standard is to ensure an adequate distance between structures and
properties in order to enhance such things as privacy, light, and ventilation. Therefore, the Board
may find that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard equally
well as a proposal which complies with the standard because: (1) the rear lot line abuts an open
space rather than a residential lot, and (2) the structure that will encroach is a trellis -covered deck
containing no walls, and thereby has minimal visual impacts.
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 8
A letter was read in support of the appeal from Richard and Judy Ermel, 1339 Banyan Drive.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted the home is approximately one year
old. Barnes noted there was miscommunication between the Applicant and the Building
Department regarding a trellis cover. Barnes stated the deck was in compliance because it is not
more than 30 inches above grade, and therefore not regulated by the building code. The
homeowners constructed a cover over a portion of the deck. A building permit is required for the
cover, and the cover is a regulated structure for purposes of setbacks. The distance from the
edge of the trellis posts to the rear property line is just over eleven feet requiring a variance. The
property is surrounded by a dedicated open space on the rear of the property. The rear lot line
does not abut another property.
Donahue asked staff if there was a chance that the open space would be developed. Barnes
replied that it would not be developed. Remington asked Barnes he if knew how many feet were
behind the property line in terms of open space. Barnes stated approximately 70 to 75 feet.
Applicant Participation:
Tyler Ellendorf, 3315 Snowbrush Court, addressed the Board. Ellendorf stated that there was a
misunderstanding with the Building Department.
Remington asked the Applicant if he ever planned on enclosing the structure. Applicant
Ellendorf said no.
In support of the Appeal:
Jack Steele, 3309 Snowbrush Court, spoke in support of the appeal, and encouraged the Board to
grant the request.
Board Discussion:
Lingle stated there was minimal visual impact, and would like to base approval on the condition
that the structure not be enclosed. Remington stated the intent of the Code is being met due to
the rear open space, and supported Lingle's condition. Lingle made a motion to approve appeal
2391. Lingle stated the purpose of the rear setback standard is to ensure adequate distance
between structures and properties in order to enhance things such as privacy, light, and
ventialation. Lingle found that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard equally well as a proposal which complies with the standard because the rear lot line
abuts a large open space, rather than another residential lot. The structure that will encroach is a
trellis cover deck containing no walls and thereby has minimal visual impact. Lingle
conditioned the approval that the trellis structure not be enclosed in the future, and stated that
there is no detriment to the public good. Stockover seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, Remington, Lingle, and Donahue.
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 9
Nays: None.
7. APPEAL NO. 2393 — Approved with conditions.
Address: 904 West Vine Drive
Petitioner: Jack Gianola for the City of Fort Collins
Zone: E/POL
Section: 3.5.1(1)(2)
Back ound:
The variance would allow an outdoor storage area at the northwest corner of Vine Drive and
Wood Street to be enclosed with a chain link fence instead of with a required solid wood or
masonry screen fence. Specifically, the variance would allow an approximate 180' x 280' area
at the corner to be used for a temporary storage yard for the City of Fort Collins water and sewer
pipe, electrical conduit, manholes, light poles, and similar Utility Department materials. These
materials are normally stored at the Utilities Service Center storage yard at 700 Wood Street.
However, they need to be temporarily relocated while the City resurfaces and reconfigures the
existing storage yard. The temporary, non -screening fence enclosure will be needed for about
one year, and then will be removed at the same time that the materials are removed from the site.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The property at the northwest corner of Vine and Wood will soon be redeveloped to include
vehicle storage buildings and a materials storage yard. There is currently a detention pond in the
location where the permanent storage yard will be, so that area cannot be used temporarily: The
proposed location is the only feasible location for a temporary yard. If a screen -type fence is
required at the proposed temporary location now, it will only have to be removed in about a year
when the redevelopment occurs. That would be an additional tax -payer cost.
Staff Comments:
The proposed permanent location for the outdoor storage yard will be screened with the
appropriate fence at the time the detention pond is relocated. However, until that happens, the
proposed location is the only place on the property for this use. If the Utility Department could
place the materials in the detention pond area now, they would just constrict the required,
permanent screen fence at this time, and not need a variance. The Board may determine that the
detention pond constitutes a topographical hardship. If the Board determines that a hardship
exists, then conditions should be placed on the variance, e.g. a maximum period of time.
Boardmember Lingle stated he had a conflict of interest with Appeal Number 2393 and recused
himself from the Board.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is at the northwest corner of Vine
Drive and Wood Street. Barnes stated at the front of the property there is currently a berm with
large, mature landscaping that would provide some screening. The proposed storage area is
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 10
behind the berm. Barnes referred boardmembers to their packets. The petitioner has indicated
that the proposed materials storage yard will be at the north end of the property, which is
currently a detention pond. The permanent materials storage yard will have to comply with the
code. Barnes stated the Applicant is proposing to enclose the proposed temporary storage yard
with a portable -type chain -link fence.
Applicant Participation:
Jack Gianola, representative for the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department, addressed the
Board. Gianola is the special project manager, and oversees all the building construction
projects for the City. Gianola stated the City is expanding the yard on the east side and needs a
temporary storage. Applicant Gianola stated the project would take approximately a year to
expand the storage yard. Gianola stated the project is currently in the design phase.
Miscio asked if the property were in a floodplain. Applicant Gianola responded that it was not.
Miscio asked what would happen to the detention pond. Gianola explained that there is a
possibility that the detention pond will no longer exist, although some of the detention pond will
remain because detention has to be provided by the developer. Miscio asked if the Board were to
grant the variance, would approval be in conflict with the current zoning ordinance which may or
may not allow outside storage. Barnes replied that the zoning ordinance does not allow outdoor
storage uses as a principle use in the zoning designations of E (Employment) or POL (Public
Open Land). Barnes stated the proposed use would be considered an accessory use, which is
allowed in all zones. Remington asked if the City would need the temporary storage for one
year. Applicant Gianola replied yes. Miscio asked if the fence the Applicant was proposing was
fairly secure to prevent vandalism. Applicant Gianola replied that the proposed fence is not
meant to be a permanent fence. The type of fence Gianola plans on using is a fence that is
typically put around construction sites due to its temporary nature.
Board Discussion:
Remington stated that if the Board approved the appeal, he would like a condition placed on
approval that the structure remain for one year. Miscio concurred with Remington, although he
was concerned with the impact on the neighborhood. Applicant Gianola informed the Board that
he has been through six neighborhood meetings with the neighbors, has resolved some issues,
and feels positive about the outcome. Stockover stated that the appeal was based on cost, and
said that cost cannot be an issue. Remington agreed with Stockover, and felt approval should not
be based on monetary value. Barnes noted that in his staff comments the City would put the
outdoor storage in the location where it is permanently planned to be per the submitted
development plan on the north end, but that is currently a detention pond and the storage cannot
be placed there. Bames stated the detention pond brings in a topographical hardship. Donahue
asked Stockover how he would feel if the temporary screening contained some slats in it to
provide extra screening. Stockover stated that he was not opposed, but stated that money could
not be an issue. There was a discussion held regarding the topographical hardship. Donahue
asked if there were any other sites the City could use for storage. Applicant Gianola stated there
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 11
are no other sites in the area because the area has already been developed. Miscio made a
motion to approve appeal number 2393 for the following reasons: (1) approval of the variance is
not detrimental to the public good; (2) exceptional physical conditions of the property that create
a hardship and the best alternative the Applicant has is to move the materials in the drainage
area; (3) approval is for an 18 month period; and (4) allowed to construct a temporary fence that
is properly secured. Donahue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Remington, and Donahue.
Nays: Stockover.
8. APPEAL NO. 2395 —Approved.
Address:
630 South Meldrum Street
Petitioner:
Doug Coates
Zone:
NCB
Section:
4.8(D)(3)(d)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 25 feet to
5 feet in order to allow an addition to the existing church/religious school at this location. The
proposed addition will line up with the existing south wall of the building, which is already at
only a five-foot setback.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
This facility is an existing facility which is designed for use by college students. Therefore, the
use needs to be close to the university. The existing building is short on class space, so the
addition is needed in order to meet the demand. The wall along the south lot line is only one-
story in height and will line-up with the existing wall. Narrowing the building by 20 feet would
result in insufficient and non-functional space. A second floor addition is not feasible because
the soils report indicates that the soil bearing capacity would not support a second floor.
Building the addition further towards the rear of the lot would require the removal of several
large trees.
Staff Comments:
The existing building is nonconforming with regards to side setbacks. This is not uncommon in
older neighborhoods where buildings were constructed under different code requirements. The
Board often grants this type of variance when the addition lines up with the existing wall, and is
only one-story in height.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Bames stated the existing facility is located in
the NCB zoning district. The NCB zone requires 25-foot side yard setback requirements for
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 12
churches and schools (a five-foot setback requirement would be required for other uses). The
purpose of the standard, 25 feet opposed to five -feet, is to give additional buffer between the
residential and non-residential uses. The current configuration of the building is L-shaped. The
Applicant is proposing to fill in the courtyard, and come out along the existing non -conforming
setback for the new construction. The new construction will be approximately the same height.
Stockover asked Barnes if he knew what the building to the right of the property was. Barnes
stated it was a residential property. Lingle asked if there was a parking lot behind the residential
property. Barnes suggested that the Applicant could possible answer that. Barnes stated the
property is in the block right off of campus, and stated the neighborhood was a mixed use
neighborhood (multi -family, office buildings, etc.). Barnes stated the properties east of the alley
are zoned CC (Community, Commercial), and the alley is the zoning district line. Remington
asked with the additional square footage if there were any requirements for additional parking.
Barnes replied no. Donahue asked what the floor area ratio requirement was for the NCB zone.
Barnes stated the lot area to floor area ration is 1:1. Barnes noted the Applicant was in
compliance with the 1:1 ratio.
Applicant Participation:
Doug Coates, an architect from Cheyenne, Wyoming, addressed the Board. Coates added that
the property to the south was student apartments, and a parking lot does exist behind the
building. Applicant Coates stated the proposed addition abuts the parking lot. Coates explained
why the school needed to expand. Coates stated the building would need to be squared off in
order to make the building functional.
Miscio asked what currently exists in the proposed addition area. Coates replied that there is a
concrete patio, grass, and sidewalks. Lingle asked if the architectural design intent was to take
the roofline from Meldrum, and extend it back to the gable. Coates responded that there will be
no overhang, although the same roofline will be maintained and possibly raised by two feet.
In Support of the Appeal:
Russell McClure, 2319 Kodiak Road, addressed the Board. Mr. McClure is the director of the
program that uses the building. McClure spoke in support of the appeal, and stated why the
building needed to be expanded.
Board Discussion:
Miscio felt the equal to or better than standard was appropriate. There was a discussion held
regarding the building being constructed under different code requirements. Stockover asked if
the property would qualify as a narrow lot. Barnes replied no. Lingle stated he was struggling
with the appeal because the zoning regulations require a church and a school to have a 25-foot
setback. Barnes noted that during peak periods of use, a church or a school have greater impacts
on neighborhoods. Remington felt the hardship standard could be justified by the following: (1)
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 13
existing nonconforming building; and (2) large mature trees. Donahue was concerned with
continuing the five-foot encroachment to the building to the right.
Applicant Coates explained the building to the right is student apartments (a house that has been
converted), and a parking lot is behind the building. Barnes asked if the church owned the
property. Coates replied no. McClure addressed the existing uses of surrounding buildings.
Stockover felt the hardship standard was appropriate. Stockover made a motion to approve
appeal 2395 for the following reasons: (1) the granting of the variance would not be detrimental
to the public good; (2) hardship of a narrow lot of the existing use; (3) hardship of mature
landscaping that inhibits the Applicant from going farther back in the center of the property; and
(4) property exists in an older neighborhood where a lot of existing buildings are five feet from
the property line, so it would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Miscio seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, and Remington.
Nays: Lingle and Donahue.
9. APPEAL NO.2396 —Approved.
Address: 726 West Mountain Avenue
Petitioner: Leonard Dickey
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(3), 4.6(E)(4)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to three feet and the right
(east) required setback from five feet to four feet, and would reduce the density requirement from
3:1 to 2.74:1 in order to construct a storage shed on an existing concrete slab.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshin:
The existing garage is not large enough to hold a vehicle and other miscellaneous items. The
Applicant would like to create an additional area for storage. If the building were brought up to
the side of the existing garage, it would eliminate most of the useful area of the backyard. The
concrete slab to the rear of the existing garage is already in place. There is a three-foot utility
easement along the rear and west property lines.
Staff Comments:
A letter from Tom and Yee Campbell of 730 Mountain Avenue was read in support of the
appeal. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the garage is an existing
detached garage and an existing concrete slab. Barnes noted there is not an alley behind the
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 14
property. Barnes stated the new construction is proposed to be four feet from the existing lot
line.
Applicant Participation:
Leonard Dickey, 726 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Applicant Dickey stated he
is proposing to build a storage shed. The current garage is not big enough to put his car in, and
he would like to use the garage as a workshop.
Board Discussion:
Stockover asked what would happen if the Applicant bought a prefabricated storage shed, and set
the shed on the concrete slab. Bames replied that if the shed exceeds 120 square feet and/or
eight feet in height, the shed could not be placed without a variance. Stockover was in favor of
approving the appeal.
Donahue asked Applicant Dickey if there were to be any doors, windows, or any type of
openings on the two sides closest to the property line. Applicant Dickey responded no.
Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2396 based on the hardship of a narrow lot and
that approval of the appeal is not detrimental to the public good. Lingle seconded the motion.
There was a discussion held regarding the narrowness of the lot and on which standard would be
used to make a motion. Miscio withdrew his motion. Lingle withdrew his second.
Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2396 for the following: (1) the granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good; (2) the general purpose of the standard is
being met by maintaining light, ventilation, space, and privacy. Miscio noted the open area will
be maintained, and the proposal does not aesthetically diminish the quality of the property.
Lingle seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, Lingle, and Donahue.
Nays: Remington.
10. APPEAL NO. 2397 — Approved.
Address: 1611 Laporte Avenue
Petitioner: Steven Shoger
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.6(E)(4)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side yard setback from five feet to one and a half feet
along the west lot line, and from five feet to 4.8 feet along the east lot line in order to allow a
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 15
one-story addition to be constructed to the existing home. The addition will line up with the
existing house setback on the east, and with the existing garage setback on the west.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. The addition will be one-story in height and will line
up with the existing walls.
Staff Comments:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Bames stated the property is near Taft Hill Road.
The garage does not have alley access.. Also the existing garage is non -conforming because it is
setback approximately one and a half feet from the property line. Barnes stated the proposal is to
add -on an addition to the back of the garage, another five or six feet beyond the rear wall of the
garage, and the proposal would line-up with the existing garage. It would become a two -car
garage. Barnes referred Boardmembers to the site plan to view the proposed layout of the
addition. Another piece of the proposal is to add an addition onto the house on the east side (the
proposed addition will line-up with the existing house). The house already exists at a non-
conforming setback (4.8 feet).
Lingle asked what type of building existed across the fence: Barnes replied that a detached
building exists there, and it is not a living area.
Applicant Participation
Steven Shoger, 1611 Laporte Avenue, addressed the Board. Shoger referenced his petitioner's
letter. He stated that he is trying to keep the floor plan as functional as possible while trying to
keep the majority of his backyard.
Lingle stated that the proposed addition is tripling the square footage of the house and the
garage. Shoger stated the square footage would only be doubled. Lingle asked Applicant
Shoger if he knew the current square footage of the home. Shoger stated 976 square feet.
Shoger is adding 600 square feet of living area.
Board Discussion:
Lingle was concerned with the large impact to the lot, and whether further encroachment would
be allowed. Lingle felt the proposal was out of proportion with the neighborhood and the lot.
Lingle struggled with the .2 feet encroachment on the one side, mainly due to the proposed
length. Miscio felt the proposal was not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Lingle felt the
proposal could be done in a variety of ways without the encroachment.
Stockover asked the Applicant how he would get a second car into the garage. Shoger explained
he would have the courtyard paved, and he would be able to clear the comer. Stockover asked if
the Applicant was doing a single or double door. Applicant Shoger responded that he would be
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 16
building a double door. Stockover asked if the Applicant knew the square footage of the garage.
Barnes replied the square footage was 486, and the Applicant agreed. Stockover asked the
Applicant what his options would be if the Board did not allow the garage to be there. Shoger
responded that his options would be limited. Shoger wanted to maintain the street access and his
garden. Stockover asked if he had alley access. Shoger stated there was an alley behind the
property, however the property is fenced, and there is no gate to make it vehicle accessible.
There was a discussion held regarding the surrounding properties. Stockover stated he felt the
proposal was consistent with a compact building maintaining open space.
Bames stated the final product would be a 1576 square foot house with an attached two -car
garage on a lot that is about 8500 square feet. Stockover asked if the Historic Preservation
would be involved with the Applicant's proposal. Bames replied that the building is not quite
fifty years old, so Historic Preservation would not be involved.
Stockover asked the Applicant if he has spoken with any of his neighbors. Applicant Shoger
stated he has, and noted his neighbors did not have any issues with the proposed addition.
Stockover was in support of the appeal, and stated the impact was minimal. Miscio was also in
favor of the appeal. There was a discussion held regarding how the Board should approach the
appeal. Remington felt the hardship issue was that the neighborhood already has some non-
conforming buildings, and that if the Board did not grant the variance, then the Board would be
denying this owner the same use of his property that other people in the neighborhood have.
Lingle disagreed. Lingle maintained his position that there were alternatives Applicant Shoger
could consider without requesting a variance. Lingle suggested maybe a two-story addition.
Applicant Shoger spoke up and stated his wife has a chronic back problem and a two-story
addition is not an option. Barnes remarked that constructing a two-story addition at a five-foot
setback without a variance may be worse than the Applicant's proposal with respect to the
impact on the neighbors.
Stockover asked what the Board was opposed to, and whether anyone was opposed to the wall
on the east -side. Lingle stated his opposition and said the overall scale was inappropriate.
Stockover asked the Board if anyone was opposed to the garage addition. Remington felt that
since it is an existing structure he did not have a problem with the garage. The Board agreed.
There was a discussion held regarding what constitutes a hardship. Stockover made a motion to
approve appeal number 2397 for the following reasons: (1) no detriment to the public good; (2)
in regards to the existing garage, moving it back to the property line would create more hard
surface and less landscaping (better to maintain open space behind the garage in its current state).
(3) the proposed addition to the house on the west property line the existing house is at 4.8 and it
needs to be at five feet to pass code: the two inches would not be detrimental to the public good.
Building a one-story addition versus a two-story is better because you have less shading. The
purpose of the standard is to provide space and privacy. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, and Remington.
Nays: Lingle and Donahue.
ZBA September 12, 2002
Page 17
11.Other Business
There was a discussion held regarding quorum requirements. Barnes wanted the Board to amend
Article H, Section 5 of the bi-laws to change the quorum requirements from three to four.
Remington made a motion to amend Article H, Section 5 to change the quorum from three to
four members. Lingle seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Miscio, Remington, Lingle and Donahue.
Nays: None.
Meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
Steve R on, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Opp'20 t . # a3g7
Petit her's Letter A
(Ell la fc^T't_ #OQ-
Zoning Adinistrator
281 North College
Ft. Collins, CO
Re: Variance for the Shoger residence
Dear Sir/ Madame:
Please see the enclosed information pertaining to the requested zoning variance. Per my
conversation with the zoning administrator on duty on August 28, 2002, the one foot five
backset from the west property line to the garage and the four foot eight backset from the
east property line to the east wall of the house are not acceptable to the board.
Per the attached survey plan and elevations provided, the alteration from the existing
garage to the new garage addition, at the west property line is minimal. In addition, the
profile of the living area will not differ from what is existing at the east property line.
Due to the constraints of the narrow lot it is difficult to utilize the lot efficiently without
incorporating the use of the existing backsets to make the new portion both aesthetically
pleasing and functional. This floor plan provides those aspects without compromising
the adjacent properties.
The fact that my home has been in existence at this location for nearly fifty years without
any issues presented, I trust that with minmal alterations to what is already existing, the
items presented above would constitute an acceptable argument for a variance to the
code.
More importantly, as a resident of fifteen years at this location, I am attempting to better
the neighborhood in which I reside without compromising the integrity of the
meighborhood as it was originally intended.
Thank you for your ccooperation.
Sincerely,
�te"ven Shoger
1611 Laporte Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80521