Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/11/2002Minutes approved ii y the Board at the May 9, 2002 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meefng:- cal I S. 2l 8 nu Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Steve Remington Phone: (H) 223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday April 11, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth David Lingle Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Donahue Andy Miscio Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Steve Roy, City Attorney Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector 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: Breth made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 21, 2002, meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2376 -- Approved. Address: 730 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Tom Campbell Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(4), and4.6(E)(5) Lingle noted the Applicant's attorney, Tim Dow, is also Lingle's corporate attorney. Lingle felt this would not pose a conflict of interest, and he would be able to remain impartial in his deliberations. Steve Roy asked if there were any objections to Mr. Lingle's participation. There were no objections. Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3:1 to 1.80:1 (allowing 3250 square feet of floor area, including the existing garage, instead of the maximum of 1958 square feet, based on the lot size), in order to allow a second floor addition to be constructed to the existing home. The variance would also: (1) reduce the required street side setback along Grant Avenue from 15 feet to 8 feet to allow a wrap around porch, and (2) from 15 feet to 10 feet to allow a family room addition on to the west side, and (3) reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet to allow the existing one-story closed -in porch on the east side of the home to be rebuilt. Lastly, the variance would allow the home to be 3 stories in height instead of 2 stories in order to allow an "observation porch" to be part of the "attic" floor space. The proposed 12:12 roof pitch creates an attic space that has a ceiling height tall enough to be classified as a "story". However, this attic space will be unfinished, unoccupied space. (The overall height of the building will be approximately 36 feet). This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard at the March 21, 2002 ZBA meeting, but was tabled to the April 11, 2002 meeting. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. Staff Comments: Barnes noted to the Board that three letters of support were received from Leonard Dickey (726 West Mountain Avenue), John Gascoyne (718 West Mountain Avenue), and Elizabeth Sundberg (119 North Grant Avenue). Barnes stated that a petition was signed by 38 individuals. The petition was circulated by the Applicant. Barnes told the Board a fax was received from Daniel Hedrick (727 West Mountain Avenue) on April 10, 2002. Mr. Hedrick wished to remove his name from the petition due to the lot -to -floor area ratio being too extreme. Mr. Hedrick noted he would support a scaled -down version of the variance request. ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 3 Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Lopez stated the property faces West Mountain Avenue. Lopez reviewed each variance request, and referred Boardmembers to the elevations in their packets. Lopez displayed various photographs that were provided by the Applicant of other homes in the area illustrating the established lot -to -floor area ratio in the neighborhood. Lopez stated that according to building codes, the third story would be considered a story due to the height of the ceiling. Lingle asked about the definition of a story. Barnes replied that he had a plans analyst review the application, and determine, based on ceiling height, use, and a stairway as to whether or not the request would qualify as a story. The plans analyst determined the request would be a third story. Bames noted to the Board with the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, almost all height limitations are measured in terms of stories, although in some zoning districts height limitations are still measured in feet. Lingle asked if the Applicant had dormer windows on the proposed third story, would it be considered a story or an attic. Barnes replied it would depend if the space were finished, occupied, and maintained the required ceiling height. Stockover asked if the proposal would have met the prior code's requirement. Barnes stated the proposal would not have met the prior code requirement of 30 feet. Remington asked what the current setback was on the west -side. Barnes replied it was 16 feet. With regards to the setbacks: (1) The Board has granted street setback variances in the older neighborhoods when it has been shown that the structure will be at least as far away from the street as would a structure in a newer subdivision where the lot line is located closer to the street than in these old subdivisions. For example, in this instance, the lot line is 20 feet from the curb along Grant. With the 8 foot setback requested, the structure will be 28 feet from the curb. In a newer subdivsion, where the lot line is 9 feet from the curb, a structure could be built with 24 feet from the curb (9 feet plus 15 foot setback) without a variance, and would be 4 feet closer to the street than the proposal before the Board. (2) The existing interior side setback (east side) is nonconforming, which is not uncommon in this part of town. The proposed new construction on that side will be in the same location as what currently exists. Applicant Participation: Tim Dow, attorney for Tom Campbell, addressed the Board. Dow stated how he and Applicant Campbell would proceed with their presentation. Tom Campbell, 730 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Campbell stated the letter from Dan Hedrick came as a surprise. Campbell felt there was confusion regarding the lot area to floor area ratio and that Mr. Hedrick was unaware that the square footage included a detached garage. Campbell noted the timing for his project was critical. Campbell would like the project to be nearly complete by the end of summer as Campbell will be attending Colorado State University in the fall. Campbell referred Boardmembers to Attachment I in their packets. Attachment I was documentation that provided evidence that the proposed square footage and the lot area to floor area ratio matched the scope ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 4 of neighboring homes. Campbell referenced several properties, and stated he sought the similar standard. Campbell referred Boardmembers to Attachment J in their packets. Attachment J contained information regarding second floor ceiling heights and third -story attic spaces. Campbell referred Boardmembers to Attachment F, which contained information regarding the revised site plan. Attachment F displayed that the footprint of the home will have minimal changes that will occur mostly to the rear of the home. Campbell stated if the garage, walls, and stairwells were not included in the square footage calculation of the home, the home would be approximately 2400 square feet. Campbell stated that his goal was to improve the property, and maintain the character of the neighborhood. Campbell noted he is also requesting an interior side -yard setback because he would like to raise the northeast corner of the back porch to the second floor. Breth asked the Applicant if the northeast comer of the back porch were raised, would the floor space be increased? Campbell responded the floor space would be increased by 80 square feet. Breth asked Campbell why he was tearing down the back porch and replacing it. Campbell responded that the home currently exists on the original footings, and the footings have sunk. Campbell stated the project will begin with adding strength to the existing footings. Campbell stated in order to add strength to the footings, the back porch will have to be completely removed in order to make the repair. Breth asked Campbell how much higher his house would be in comparison to the neighboring property. Campell replied that currently his roofline is already higher than his neighbors, and the second floor addition would raise the roofline another 10 feet. Lingle asked the Applicant what the square footage of the home was currently. Applicant Campbell stated it was 1800 square feet including the detached garage. Remington asked Campbell if he had spoken with the Historic Preservation office. Campbell replied that he is currently working with Karen McWilliams of the City's Historic Preservation Department. Remington questioned the Applicant regarding Attachments I and J. Remington also asked whether the Applicant knew if the referenced properties were in the NCL zoning district. Campbell stated the referenced properties were in the NCL zoning district. Remington asked if the Applicant were seeking relief under the hardship standard or the equal to or better than standard. Mr. Dow addressed the question for Applicant Campbell. Dow stated the Board may grant a variance if the variance is found not to be detrimental to the public good, or authorize a change in the current change of use. Dow stated Mr. Campbell's proposal was neither, and the Applicant's proposal met this standard. Dow remarked the strict application of the Code would result in either unusal or exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship not caused by the owner. Dow stated the proposal meets both the hardship standard and the equal to or better than standard. Dow stated regarding the hardship standard, the conditions involved in the physical location of the lot would create a hardship. The lot is a corner lot with additional setback and right-of-way issues. Dow stated that Applicant Campbell is seeking to maitain some type of appropriate mass on the lot and the visual impact would be minimal. Dow commented that the age and condition of the home dictate that there be some significant improvements to the property. Dow remarked that the current size of the home (two bedroom, one bath) is not suitable for a modem family. Dow said some hardship issues exist and the strict interpretation of ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 5 the Code would deprive the rights of the Applicant commonly enjoyed by others in the neighborhood. Dow stated regarding the equal to or better than standard no adverse impact on the neighborhood or general public would occur. Dow stated the proposal would be a significant improvement and enhancement of the of the property which is consistent with the neighborhood. Remington asked if any trees would be removed from the property. Campbell stated no. In sunnort of Anneal Robert Rupp , 618 West Mountain Avenue, expressed his support for the appeal. Rupp felt the proposal would be an improvement. Rupp has lived on West Mountain for forty years and noted the sinking foundation problem was common in this area. Leonard Dickey, 726 West Mountain Avenue, expressed his support for the appeal. Dickey stated he was in favor of the appeal due to the property not becoming rental property, and that the proposal would better accommodate Mr. Campbell's family. Stockover asked Mr. Dickey if he had any concerns regarding the proposed height since he lives next door and is most affected by the height. Dickey responded that he did not. Rich Askew, 800 West Mountain Avenue, expressed his support for the appeal. Askew felt the aesthetics of the proposal would improve the neighborhood. Neutral support of the Appeal: Martha Hedrick, 727 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Mrs. Hedrick represented the letter her husband, Dan Hedrick, had written taking their name off of the petition. Hedrick noted she was concerned with what Historic Preservation would do to amend and/or change the plans. Hedrick felt the lot -to -floor area was too extreme. Hedrick stated she would support a scaled down version of the proposal. Hedrick was concerned about the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Lingle wanted to know how much additional space and bulk the Applicant would be adding. Campbell told the Board that the kitchen would be enlarged slightly, and the second floor would include a master bedroom plus two other bedrooms and two bathrooms. Campbell stated one of the bedrooms on the first floor will be a converted into a stairwell to the second floor. Stockover stated he did not have any concerns regarding the proposal, although he was a little concerned with the height. Stockover noted the neighbor who would be directly effected is not concerned regarding the proposed height. Stockover felt a precedent would not be set. Breth concurred with Stockover. ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 6 Lingle stated he had no issues with the height and setbacks, although he struggled with the scale and scope of the addition. Lingle felt he would have a difficult time approving the request under the hardship standard because the hardship would be self-imposed. Lingle asked staff if there were other zoning districts in the City that allowed a lot area to floor area ration of 2:1. There was a discussion held regarding the boundaries of the zoning districts, specifically what each zoning district allowed in terms of lot to floor area ratios. Remington felt there was not a detriment to the public good. Remington stated he shared Mrs. Hedrick's concerns regarding the scale of the project. Remington stated in terms of the setbacks and the comer lot situtation a case could be made for the hardship standard without setting a precedent. There was a discussion held on how the appeal should be addressed. Roy advised the Board. Lingle moved to approve Appeal Number 2376. The reduction of setbacks would be approved on both the hardship and the equal to or better than standard citing the hardship as a comer lot situation and the size of the lot. The lot -to -floor area ratio and height would be approved on the basis of the equal to or better than standard due to the compliance of this design with the overall character of the neighborhood, and the fact that there are no objections from the neighborhood. Lingle also noted that similar scaled homes have been allowed in the past in this immediate neighborhood, and would be allowed in different zoning districts within a block or two of this site. Lingle stated there was no detriment to the public good. Remington wanted Lingle to add the finding that the proposal was for a site on a corner lot situation that had parkways on two sides of the property. Hedrick suggested that the Board define the square footage of the parkways and add this to their motion. Lingle amended his motion to include that the approval was site specific, and based on a corner lot condition with parkways on both sides of the property. Breth seconded the motion. Remington asked staff if the Applicant would have to receive Historic Preservation approval in order to obtain their building permit. Barnes and Eckman gave clarification on the Historic Preservation process that Applicant Campbell will be going through with his proposal. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Remington, Stockover, and Lingle. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2377 -- Approved. Address: 1901 Mohawk Street Petitioner: Kevin Corcoran Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(C) ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 7 Back round: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from the west lot line from 15 feet to 3.23 feet in order to allow a two -car garage addition to the west side of the house. The existing one -car garage will be converted to a bathroom, utility room, and storage area. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B and B 1. Staff Comments Bames noted he received 8 letters showing support for the appeal. Letters were received from the following: R. Joseph Bergquist (728 Cheyenne Drive), Bruce and Nancy Hansford (1900 Mohawk Street), George and Frances Olson (1909 Mohawk Street), Mrs. Lilly Lumb (1905 Mohawk Street), Patricia Tellez (1804 Mohawk Street), Cynthia Litton -Fanning (1908 Osage Street), Tim Ortiz (724 Cheyenne Drive), and Barbara Mussil (725 Cheyenne Drive). Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Lopez stated the property exists on a corner lot. The proposed garage addition would face Cheyenne Drive. The garage is currently a one -car garage. Bames referred the Board to the elevation drawings in their packets. Bames stated the petitioner indicated that there would be 26 feet between the structures with the addition. Lingle stated the submitted site plan showed the addition encroaching into a six-foot utility easement, and asked staff it that were correct. Barnes replied yes, and remarked the Applicant was in the process of vacating a portion of the easement. Lingle asked if approval of the request could be contingent on the vacation of the easement being granted? Barnes replied that if the Board granted the variance, and the easement were not vacated, the Building Department would not be able to issue the permit. Applicant Participation: Kevin Corcoran, 1901 Mohawk Street, addressed the Board. Corcoran stated his comments to plead his case were included in the petitioner's letter. Corcoran noted when he purchased the home in 1993 he intended to add an additional car garage. There were inconsistencies among the original site plan and the actual distance between the back comer of the garage and the lot line. The home currently does not have a utility room. The Applicant stated this was an inconvenience due to the current utility closet being located in the kitchen. Applicant Corcoran said he was committed to preserving the original design of the home. Corcoran stated the proposed garage would be set back 8 feet off the line of the house. The proposal will reduce the roofline. The Applicant also intended to add two additional doors. Breth asked the Applicant if he has explored other space planning options. Applicant Corcoran stated he has. Breth asked the Applicant if there was a way to make a garage stall out of the covered porch behind the existing garage. Corcoran stated he has looked at the option, and the ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 8 option was not feasible to him. There was a discussion held regarding the various positions the proposed garage could be placed. Board Discussion: Stockover stated he was not opposed to the appeal. Breth had trouble with the setback being within three feet of the property line. Breth stated if the Board were in favor of granting the variance, a condition of the approval should be that the easement be vacated. Lingle stated the design maintained the concepts of planning by keeping the garage from becoming the dominant feature of the property. Lingle remarked that alternative designs would be detrimental to the Applicant because the Applicant would not be able to enjoy the house and the backyard. Remington asked the Board how the variance request should be addressed. Barnes advised the Board. Breth felt the proposal could be redesigned so the garage would not face Cheyenne Drive. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2377. Remington stated the findings from the letters read into the record indicated there was no detriment to the public good. Remington noted other homes in the neighborhood have two -car garages. Remington said the 40-year-old pine tree in its current location relative to the house created a unique situation and a hardship. Remington noted approval of the variance request was contingent on the vacation of the easement. Stockovei seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Stockover, and Lingle. Nays: Breth. 5. APPEAL NO. 2378 -- Approved with conditions. Address: 330 East Magnolia Street Petitioner: Carl Lantz Zone: NCM Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building. Specifically, the variance would allow the homeowner's art studio business to be conducted entirely within the existing detached garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The homeowner has a woodworking business, which requires space for his equipment and tools. The business is small-scale, and would not impact the neighbors. The owner would like a ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 9 separate building because of the potential amount of wood dust, etc. that can be created. The owner stated that he does have an adequate dust collection system for the garage. Staff Comments: The garage is an older, existing, detached building. It is not uncommon for the Board to hear requests to allow home occupation activities in these types of buildings in the older neighborhoods. Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The detached garage sits diagonally on the property. Applicant Participation: Carl Lantz, 330 East Magnolia Street, addressed the Board. Lantz stated he was a professional artist. Lantz purchased the property in February 2002, with the intention of living there and having his art studio there. Lantz believed he would be allowed to conduct his business on the property. Lantz planned on repairing and improving the garage space. Lingle asked the Applicant if he intended to insulate the garage to contain equipment noise. Applicant Lantz responded that he does. Breth asked the Applicant if he would have any employees. Lantz stated that he works alone, and his work is sold in galleries. Board Discussion: Remington stated a number of similar appeals have been granted in the past. Remington noted the following conditions are placed on such approvals: (1) owner specific and (2) for the particular business the applicant has applied for. Remington stated with those conditions he would support approval for the appeal. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2378 on the hardship that if the garage were attached, the Applicant would be allowed to have the business. Breth also found the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public good. Breth stated the approval was based on the condition that the variance is owner and business specific. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Remington, Stockover and Lingle. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2379 -- Approved. Address: Lots 16, 31, 47, 81 and 152 Linden Park Subdivision Petitioner: Centex Homes Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 10 Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from 15 feet to 7 feet for Lot 31, and from 15 feet to 5 feet for Lots 16, 47, 81, and 152. These lots are all corner lots, wherein the front of the home faces the legal street side lot line rather than the legal front lot line. Therefore, the legal rear lot line actually functions as an interior side lot line. An interior side lot line requires only a 5-foot setback, so the buildings on these lots will comply with the intent of the setback requirement. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's letter C Staff Comments: The Board usually hears this type of variance request when a homeowner desires to add on to an existing home, and the proposed addition does not comply with the setback, but where the original house construction did comply. In this instance, the builder is requesting a comer lot variance before the original house construction takes place. Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Lopez stated the properties are for duplex units that have not yet been constructed. The legal backyards would have a 7-foot setback. Applicant Participation: Yvonne Seaman with Centex Homes addressed the Board. When Seaman applied for the building permit for lot 31, staff informed Seaman that the actual front lot line would be White Willow Drive due to the smaller frontage dimension. The Code states a 15-foot setback is required from the front, and a 15-foot setback is required from the side adjacent to a street. Seaman stated, under this circumstance, the rear lot line becomes a 7-foot setback. At this point, Seaman realized there would not be enough room for the duplexes on the lots referenced above. Seaman noted since application the above reference lots has been reassessed. Seaman is requesting the following: Lots 31, 47, and lot 16 be reduced from 15 feet to 7 feet, and Lots 81 and 152 be reduced from 15 feet to 12 feet. Barnes noted to the Board that the request has been made more specific. Barnes stated the lots are approved duplex lots. Seaman remarked she needed to meet the density requirements for the subdivision, and the lots needed to remain as duplex lots. Seaman noted the subdivision was designed so that all of the homes would face the roads going east and west. Breth asked if the single-family corner lots would comply with setback requirements. Seaman stated yes, and explained why the single-family lots would comply with setback requirements. There was a discussion held regarding setback requirements on the single-family lots. ZBA April 11, 2002 Page 11 Board Discussion: Breth stated he was in favor of the appeal. Lingle agreed. Remington asked the Board what they would consider the hardship to be. Lingle stated the definition of the legal front yard versus the actual front yard would qualify as the hardship. Remington was concerned with setting precedence. Remington stated the density requirement added an additional hardship. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2379 for the hardship that the lots are comer lots whereby the legal front does not permit the facing of the duplexes that have to be rotated to the non -legal fronts of the lots. Approval was for the lots to be setback at either a 7 or 12-foot setback as stated above. Breth noted the approval was not detrimental to the public good. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Remington, Stockover, and Lingle Nays: None. Other Business Bames informed the Board of proposing a code change to City Council in May. The proposed code change would be for corner lots. The proposed code change would state that on a comer lot the front lot line will be considered the street to which the primary entrance to the building faces. Reminder that the questionnaire needed to be completed. There was a discussion held regarding a time to discuss the questionnaire. The Board decided to have a breakfast meeting for the May meeting. The Board will meet at 8:00 a.m. to discuss the questionnaire, and appeals meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. . _' 1&- Steve / m gton, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Variance Appeal We have lived in our Old Town home for ten years. We feel fortunate to have found such a beautiful and wonderful neighborhood in which to live and that is perfect for raising a family. We have recently started our family and our one-year old has inspired us to consider a renovation that looks toward the future for a growing family. Our two -bed, one -bath, 1000 square foot home is already less than comfortable. Our charming home was unfortunately poorly constructed. The stone foundation walls have sunk in areas giving each room a unique tilt, and the attic has many gaps that let in plenty of light and cold winds. The equity built-up in our home allows us to now undertake a large renovation that would allow us to make the home larger, more efficient, and improve its architectural appearance and integrity. Our objective is to accommodate a growing single-family comfortably while enhancing the value and architectural uniqueness of our home and neighborhood, and we proceed with the approval of our neighborhood (See Attachment G — Letters of Support, and Attachment H— Neighborhood Petition). Our proposal includes raising the home to rebuild the foundation, ensuring that the home is adequately insulated, extending a side porch to the west and north to create a family room adjoining the kitchen, wrapping the front porch around to Grant Street, and adding a complete second floor for a master bedroom, two rooms, and two baths. The architecture will continue to be Victorian, retaining most of the original features. We feel that the remodeling of this home is the most efficient and economic use of the land. The final square footage with the two-story addition and the existing detached garage will be 3250 square feet. See Attachment F— Revised Site Plan and Attachment B — Elevation Drawings. Since we are located in a N-C-L zone we would require four variances to proceed Specific hardships to consider for our property include: According to low -density district requirements for Land Use Standards, "the minimum lot area shall be equivalent to at least three (3) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet." Our lot, as recently surveyed, measures 5,875 square feet, and the existing home and garage are already a third of the lot size. The small lot size density ratio presents a hardship to produce a home that is suitable for a modern family. - The lot ratio creates a hardship that does not allow our home to attain the two-story standard that ten of the fifteen homes on our block share. Our lot on the corner of Mountain and Grant requires additional setbacks that are not typically the case with non -corner lots. We hope that in considering the footprint size of the home and the setback issues, that distances to the sidewalks and the streets are considered in determining how appealing our proposal sits on the lot, while not impeding public access. Variance Requests In order to accomplish our proposed addition, we are requesting four variances for: (1) interior side yard setback, (2) side yard setback, (3) N-C-L density zoning, and (4) maximum building height. Details and reasons for our requests are as follows: 1) Interior Side Yard Setback Interior side yard setback variance from 5 feet to 2 feet for our existing side porch on the NE corner of the home. - Current porch is two feet from the east property line, nine feet high for a length of twelve feet, and a distance of twelve feet to the neighbor's home. Our proposal would rebuild the structure at a new height of eleven feet (to accommodate stairs to the second floor). - Under consideration is whether to carry this side to the full height of the second floor. 2) Side Yard Setback The proposed west elevation addition crosses the 15 feet setback boundary by 5 feet and our proposed wrap around porch -exceeds the 15 feet setback by 7 feet. - The porch and family room is architecturally necessary to add dimension and appeal to the west face of the home that faces Grant St. Petitioner's Letter A The porch will be ...alve feet from the sidewalk, and twenty-eig. ., feet from the street. Please see Attachment C of supporting photos. 3) Low Density Zoning The density requirement for our N-C-L zoned property is a 3:1 ratio. This allows for 1958 s.f., while our proposal will produce approximately 3250 s.f. including the garage, for a ratio of 1.8:1. - The small lot constrains the livable space issues. - We feel our proposed addition is beneficial to the public good in that the east, west and north elevations of the current home are not attractive, and our objective is a home that is appealing from all perspectives. Also, our project would rebuild the failing foundation and replace the old electrical wires, providing a safer structure. - The alterations to the footprint of the home are all on the back of the home. - Within a single block of our property are neighborhoods under N-C-M that have a 2:1 ratio, this disparity is to our disadvantage. At a 2:1 ratio, our request would be very close to the ordinance requirement. - If the intent of the density ratio focuses on the footprint of the structures as they sit on the land, would it be proper to calculate the lot size as if the street curbs bound it? This calculation produces a lot of 9940 s.f. that would comply with the 3:1 ratio. And if the original lot of 190 feet by 50 feet were still intact, our proposal would comply. The amount of open space surrounding the home would not be consumed by our proposed addition. - Please see Attachment D, and Attachment I — Density and Square Footage of supporting photos. 4) Maximum Building Height The maximum allowable building height is two stories and our plans include adding a second floor and a new attic above it. The 12:12 pitch of the attic space creates space that is tall enough to stand up in and this constitutes a third story. - It is important to retain the original pitch of our roof. The 12:12 pitch is typical of many Old Town homes. - If headroom in the attic constitutes a third story, then roughly a third of the surrounding homes constitute 3-story homes. This is a standard that we seek to share. - The second story of our addition is at a height of 24 feet, and this is equivalent to the second floor height of the surrounding homes. It is the pitch of the attic that adds another 14 feet to the height of the building. - Please see Attachment J — Building Heights of supporting photos. The conceptual elevation drawings were not produced professionally, but by our hand. The greatest care was taken in creating the west elevation since it is the longest exposed length of the home. We have recently retained Kim Normandin, who designed the 606 W. Mountain addition as our architect, and expect her to be of great value in revising our plans so that our home will add value to our Old Town neighborhood. We are certain that Kim will contribute creative improvements to our developing plans. Thank you for considering our variance request. Yee Campbell tfom Campbell Kevin P. Corcoran 1901 Mohawk Street Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525 970-493-6454 March 20, 2002 City of Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Department 281 N. College Avenue Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521 Attention: Mr. Peter Barnes Reference: Setback Variance Request Dear Mr. Barnes: I am writing you to request approval for a setback variance from the requirements of the Land Use Code. The setback is necessary to construct a two car garage on the side of our existing home at 1901 Mohawk Street, Fort Collins. Our home was constructed on a comer lot in 1963 by Les Everitt (Everitt Lumber Co.). At the time, Mr. Everitt only had the need for a one -car garage, and with grown children, little need for unheated storage space. We purchased the house in 1993 with the intent of adding a two -car garage, and increasing our storage capacity (The house has slab -on - grade construction with no basement). We request that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a setback variance for the following reasons: 1. Our home is situated on a corner lot. The driveway must approach the home along the side / back yard. This is the only location available on the property for the proposed two -car garage addition. 2. The house was constructed during the era in which the minimum setback for the front yard was 30'-0". The average distance from the rear lot line to the structure is 25.37'. Had the house been built to the current code requirement, the structure would have been situated with a 20' front setback and 35.37' rear clearance, allowing for the proposed garage addition. 3. The minimum width needed for a two -car garage is 22'-0". We have an average of 25.37' to the lot line. Without the variance we will not be able to add the proposed garage. 4. Electrical services to our property and the adjoining lot to our west feeds from the south and terminates approximately 84.8 feet from our north property line along Cheyenne Drive. The only utilities that occupy the existing easement are our cable T.V. and phone. (This information is pertinent to our application submitted to the City Engineering Department requesting a utility vacation easement of 3'- 0" from the 6'-0" easement. Application was submitted March 20, 2002) Petitioner's Letter B 5. The property has an existing 40 year old pine tree which we wish to preserve. Any other garage location necessitates the removal of this mature tree. 6. The architectural design of the home is unique and esthetically pleasing. It is our strong desire to preserve the integrity of the original design by adding to the structure in such a way that will not deter from the architect's original intent. The proposed garage achieves this in the best possible way. 7. It is my understanding that the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code encourages having the garage portion of a home situated in such a way as to avoid being the focus of the structure. By off setting the garage approximately six feet back from the street elevation of the house, I feel we achieve this intent. The only other option for the garage would have involved removal of the 40 year old pine tree and pushing the garage out toward the street, there -by encroaching on the 15'-0" building setback requirement along Cheyenne Drive. 8. We have met with our surrounding neighbors regarding the placement of the garage addition and they were in acceptance of our idea, and encouraged us to proceed with the city process for approval. We ask that the City of Fort Collins approve our request for a setback variance under the premise that this is an extraordinary and exceptional situation unique to our property, due to physical conditions outlined above. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you need further information please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached during the day at 970-204-4700. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Kevin P. Corcoran o -W l Kevin & Krisann Corcoran 1901 Mohawk Street Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 493-6454 April 8, 2002 City of Fort Collins Building and Zoning Department Dear Zoning Board Members: The visual impact of our proposed garage addition is important to us. As a result, we have made the decision to set the garage back from the north elevation (Cheyenne Dr.) of our home by approximately eight feet. As on additional consideration, I measured the distance between our proposed addition at 1901 Mohawk St. and our closest neighbor's home to the west at 725 Cheyenne Drive. With the addition, there will be 26'-0" between structures, with a large pine tree as a buffer. Directly north of us at 728 and 724 Cheyenne Drive, there is a distance of 19'-0" between the two homes. (See attached drawing for clarification) We feel the distance between our proposed structure and our neighbors' home to the west will fit well with the existing homes in our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, D-- Kevin Corcoran Petitioner's Letter B I ECG< > L---[Q Variance request for - 2038 Fossil Creek Parkway, Lot 31 - 1902 Falcon Ridge Drive, Lot 47 - 1903 Prairie Hill Drive, Lot 1$-(,9 - q r - 1821 Prairie Hill Drive, Lot 81 - i7 - 1820 Falcon Ridge Drive, Lot 152 -1?- 9250 E. Castilla Ave., #200 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Phone: 303-792-9810 Fax 303-792-9811 Centex Homes purchased the Linden Park Subdivision in March 2001. At that time we purchased the land with an approved plat and began construction of the site. As we started construction of homes in the area we realized that there were a few lots that were not correctly platted to accept the product we designed for the site. In October of 2001 we submitted a replat of the lots that were not buildable sites. We recently applied for a Building Permit for Lot 31 and were informed that the front of the lot faces White Willow Drive. White Willow Drive is the front of the lot because on a corner lot the shortest lot line is considered the front lot line. As we looked at the rest of the plat we found four additional lots which will have the same front lot orientation as defined by code. Lots 16, 47, 31, 152 as defined by code require the front of the lot to be facing Fossil Creek Circle. As you look at the plat it is clear that the front of the lots were design to be facing north and south as the rest of the homes in the subdivision. Thus we are requesting the following rear setback variances: Lot 31 7-foot rear setback Lot 16 5-foot rear setback Lot 47 5-foot rear setback Lot 81 5-foot rear setback Lot 152 5-foot rear setback As we looked at turning the building we found the following reasons why it would not work: 1. The lot is not wide enough to allow the building to be turned. 2. The lot will no longer meet the solar orientation criteria. 3. The driveways on Lots 16, 47, 81 and 152 would be dangerous and a hazard to homeowners as well as people using Fossil Creek Circle. 4. Lot 31 would be the only house in the subdivision facing White Willow Drive and facing Timberline Road. The variance meets the standard equally will in the following ways: ♦ The separation of the homes will be maintained as set by the City of Fort Collins setback criteria. ♦ The setback from all adjacent streets will be 15 feet. ♦ The variance request will not be a detriment to the public good or impairment to and purpose of the code. Petitioner's Letter C