HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/12/2003Afinutes approved by the Board at the July 10, 2003 Meeting
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — June 12, 2003
8:45 a.m.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760)
II Chairperson: Steve Remington Il Phone: (M 223-7138
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday June 12, 2003, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alison Dickson
Dwight Hall
David Lingle
Andy Miscio
William Stockover
Robert Donahue
Steve Remington
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 Vice -Chairperson Lingle, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Hall made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 8, 2003, meeting.
Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed.
ZBA J, 12, 2003
Page 2
3. APPEAL NO. 2422 - Approved
Address:
2702 Bradford Square
Petitioner:
Andy Looney
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D) (2) (C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to
10 feet in order to allow an I F x I V dining room addition. The addition will be located where
the existing deck is. The deck is currently 6 feet from the rear lot line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. In addition, in order to accommodate the side -loaded
garage off of the other street, the house was probably constructed further back for safety
purposes, thus reducing the size of the back yard.
Staff Comments
A letter was read in support of the appeal written by Susan L. Epstein of 2714 Bradford Square.
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property is recorded in the RL
zone and it is a comer lot. The development was a pre -Land Use Code development, but ahead
of its time because it incorporated some design standards in the development such as small
neighborhood parks that are encouraged now. The property is on the corner of Bradford Square
and Hastings and across the street is a large pocket park. The lots are smaller than what is
normally found in the RL zone due to the pocket parks. The existing deck is about six feet from
the rear lot line and the proposal would be to remove the deck and construct a dining room which
would be approximately eleven feet from the rear property line. There is a side -loaded garage
facing Hastings.
ADDlicant Particination
Andy Looney, 2702 Bradford Square, addressed the Board. Looney stated his cover letter
explained his concerns and the situation. Looney did not have anything else to add to his
argument.
Board Discussion:
Stockover was in favor of the appeal. The Board discussed if the proposal would fall under the
hardship standard. Miscio failed to see a negative impact. Lingle agreed with Miscio. Dickson
made a motion to approve appeal number 2422 based on the hardship standard for the following
reasons: (1) the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; (2) there
ZBt.,Line 12, 2003
Page 3
are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to
the property which was the subject of the appeal such as the shallow rear -yard and the
neighborhood characteristic of pocket parks for green space (the property will not lose any green
space). The proposal will use the existing footprint of the deck. Dickson noted that there have
been no neighborhood complaints. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Lingle, Miscio, and Stockover.
Nays: None.
4. APPEAL NO. 2423 - Approved
Address:
1040 East Elizabeth Street
Petitioner:
Ron Baker
Zone:
NCB
Section:
4.8 (D) (3) (C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to
5 feet in order to allow a new 20' x 24' detached, wood storage building to be constructed. The
new building would replace the existing 15' x 20' metal storage building. The existing building
is only about 2 feet from the rear lot line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing building is dilapidated and not weather or animal tight. The petitioner needs to use
the building for records storage and would like to replace the existing building with a wood one.
Moving the building 10 feet further south would result in the loss of a number of needed parking
stalls. The property behind this lot is undeveloped, so there are currently no other buildings
there.
Staff Comments:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the property is zoned NCB,
which stands for Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zoning District. The property is in close
proximity to Lemay Avenue. The property at the corner is an insurance office and the property
west of the insurance office are medical office buildings, and the property in question is an office
building. This demonstrated the commercial nature of the property. Barnes stated the property
to the north is undeveloped and is zoned NC (Neighborhood Commercial). The metal building
currently exists on a corner of the property, and this is the building that is proposed to be
replaced with a new wood storage building. The existing building is a couple of feet from the
north property line, and the Applicant is proposing to have the new storage shed five feet from
the rear lot line. The property in the NC zone does not have any rear or side yard setback
requirements.
ZBA - .ie 12, 2003
Page 4
Lingle asked staff if the proposal would displace one parking space and if there was a parking
requirement the Applicant would have to meet. Barnes replied that when the development was
constructed the Code required a minimum number of parking spaces based on square footage of
the building —the requirement no longer exists.
The property to the north of the proposed building is the one that is most affected by the variance
request. That property is zoned NC, which is a commercial zone wherein no building setbacks
apply to the rear or side lot lines. Therefore, the Board may determine that the intent of the 15-
foot rear setback regulation (to safeguard the abutting property to the north with respect to such
things as privacy, density and light) is satisfied.
Applicant Participation:
Ron Baker, 330 South Grant Avenue, addressed the Board. The first issue was that land had
been rezoned. Baker stated that the parking lot was shared. Baker said that he has found several
dead animals in the shed. Baker noted that he did store records in the shed, but they were ruined.
Baker stated that the building was dilapidated and there was no way to have it repaired. Baker
said he would lose one parking space. It was decided that the proposed setback was an
improvement over what had previously been there.
Board Discussion:
Stockover made a motion to approve appeal 2423 because approval of the variance was not
detrimental to the public good. Stockover stated that bringing the setbacks into compliance
would limit access to the parking lot. Stockover stated that due to the commercial zoning of the
surrounding properties there was not a negative impact to the surrounding properties. Stockover
stated that the existing layout and traffic pattern were the hardships. Miscio seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Lingle, Miscio, and Stockover.
Nays: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2424 - Approved
Address:
1113 West Olive Street
Petitioner:
Joe Vansant
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6 (E) (2), 4.6 (E) (3), 4.6 (F) (1) (C), and 4.6 (D) (1)
Background:
The variance would (1) reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to the front
wall of the home and to 4 feet from the roof overhang over the front door, (2) would reduce the
required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet, (3) would allow the attached garage to be
ZB,. ,une 12, 2003
Page 5
located flush with the front wall of the home instead of being setback 10 feet behind the front
wall of the building, (4) would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 3000 square
feet, and (5) would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to I to 2.9 to 1. The
variances are necessary in order to allow a new home to be built on this older, 3000 square foot
lot.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The lot used to be a City of Fort Collins substation and was created for that use and platted at the
current size. There is no additional land available to buy. Without a variance, nothing can be
built. The front property line is 15 feet behind the street curb, so the intent of the front setback
requirement from the street is satisfied. This 15-foot "parkway" area also makes the lot look
bigger. If the 900 square foot parkway area is included as part of the size of the lot, then the
intent of the to 1 lot area/floor area ratio is met. Since the lot is very shallow, only 50 feet, it is
difficult to build a functional house that complies with both the front and rear setback
requirements.
Staff Comments:
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the history of this appeal
concerning the Zoning Board of Appeals goes back to the 1980s. The current petitioner came
before the Board in the 80s and requested similar variances which were granted, but the variance
expired. The new potential owner came before the Board asking again for similar variance
which was approved. The Applicant, Mr. Vansant, was before the Board again resurrecting the
project. Barnes stated that many variances are required. The property used to be a City of Fort
Collins Light and Power substation and the City removed the substation in the 1980s and sold the
property. The sale was not conditioned on the need for any variances. Vansant was not the first
purchaser of the property.
The lot is a very small infill lot. The proposal as submitted is to build a house on the property
and variances are required with regards to setback and lot area to floor area ratio. Vansant
proposed a new request to allow the attached garage to be located flush with the front wall of the
home instead of being setback ten feet behind the front wall. The proposed house is similar to
the one proposed in the 1980s, although at that time the Code did not require a recessed setback
for garages. The proposal does not allow for alley access for the garage, but accessed off of
Olive Street. Barnes stated that the Code requires that properties adjacent to an alley have to
take access off of the alley unless the City Engineering Department waives that requirement and
in this case it has been waived.
Barnes stated that small lots are scattered throughout the neighborhood. Lingle asked if the
neighborhood was a part of the west -side historic neighborhood. Barnes replied yes and noted
that many homes are one to one and a half stories —bungalow type. Lingle asked if new
construction on an undeveloped lot fell under Landmark Preservation Commission review.
Barnes said that if the property was in a historic district the Commission would have to review it
ZBA . ,e 12, 2003
Page 6
to see if it contributed to the district, although that was not the case here. Barnes reviewed the
minimum design standards for the neighborhood.
Miscio asked if there was anything of substance that has changed since the request was approved
the last time. There was a discussion held regarding what has and has not changed.
The Board granted setback and lot area variances for this lot in 1985 and 1996. Both of the
previous variances expired, with no construction activity occurring. The original 1985 petitioner
is once again requesting similar variances in order to allow the proposed infill development. The
"equal to or better than" standard was not available for the Board to apply in the earlier
variances. Therefore, they were both granted under the hardship criteria.
Applicant Participation:
Joe Vansant, 119 West Lake Street, addressed the Board. Vansant stated that he was the original
purchaser of the property. Vansant stated that the house was essentially the same since the
original approval. The house was not built due to financial matters. Vansant stated that he
would like the house to be an owner -occupied house and has worked hard on the house design.
Vansant said the neighborhood was unique and felt there was not a negative impact to the
neighbors.
Board Discussion
Lingle asked if the outside material would be stucco. Vansant replied yes. Miscio felt that a
precedent has been set and there are not any significant changes to what has been approved in the
past. Miscio was in favor of the appeal and that the hardship standard should be used due to the
configuration of the lot. Hall agreed with Miscio. Lingle agreed also. Miscio made a motion to
approve appeal number 2424 based on the hardship standard. Miscio stated approval of the
variance was not detrimental to the public good. Miscio noted that there are exceptional physical
conditions with the lot creating the hardship specifically the lot size and configuration. Miscio
also mentioned that the request has been approved before and there are no significant changes
being made to the proposal. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Lingle, Miscio and Stockover.
Nays: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2425 - Approved
Address:
713 Mathews Street
Petitioner:
Lydia Brown
Zone:
NCM
Section:
4.7 (E) (4)
Zb_ .,une 12, 2003
Page 7
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to
18 inches in order to allow an 8-foot addition onto the rear of the existing detached garage. The
existing garage is already only 18 inches from the south lot line, and the addition would line-up
with the existing south wall. The new addition will change the access from a street -accessed
garage to an alley -accessed garage.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
If the addition were constructed 3.5 feet further north in order to comply with the 5-fool side
setback, the resulting offset would not allow the garage door access to be moved to the alley.
The addition would also allow for storage area of bikes, etc.
Staff Continents
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property currently has a
driveway coming off of Mathews Street. The property does not have alley access. The proposal
would be to add on a portion of the building with the garage doors facing off of the alley. The
property to the south would be most affected by the setback variance. The existing garage is
only 18 inches from the existing property line, and the addition would be line-up with the
existing south wall of the property.
Applicant Participation:
Mark Freeman, 713 Mathews Street, addressed the Board. His wife applied for the variance
request. Freeman stated that one of the main reasons for the variance request was to have access
to the garage from the alley. The driveway goes all the way through the property to the rear
comer of the property —alley access would reclaim some green space. Freeman noted that the
garage is in need of repair. Freeman said only eight feet will be added onto the back following
the south wall line.
Miscio asked if the existing garage would be improved or modified. Freeman responded that the
roof will be replaced and minor brick repairs will be made. Freeman stated the door access on
the north is not functional, but he plans on making it functional. Freeman gave additional
pictures to the Board.
Lingle asked Freeman if his plans were to extend the roofline to the west (at its current
configuration) and extend the sidewalls back in brick. Freeman replied yes. Lingle also asked if
the bam doors would be kept. Freeman replied yes.
Board Discussion:
Stockover felt it would be a shame to tear down the building due to the character and was in
support of the appeal. The Board discussed whether to use the hardship or equal to or better than
standard. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2425. Dickson stated the granting
ZBA z 12, 2003
Page 8
of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard is to
maintain adequate space and light from one property to another, and the proposal as submitted
will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better the standard for the
following reasons: (1) the existing garage is only 18 inches from the property line; (2) the garage
is a historic building and enlarging it by making it jog one way would not be as aesthetically
pleasing, impractical, out of character with the neighborhood, and not allow enough physical
dimension to take access off of the alley. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Lingle, Miscio, and Stockover.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO. 2403A and 2404A - Approved
Address:
320 North College Avenue
Petitioner:
Greg Fisher
Zone:
T
Section:
2.10.2(K)
Background:
The request would allow the original variances that were granted on January 9, 2003, to be
extended an additional six months. The original request was to allow the existing Schrader
office building to be demolished and a new office building to be constructed in its place, and to
allow a 1950 square foot enclosed truck wash addition to the rear of the existing warehouse/shop
building. The Code stipulates that a variance expires six months from the date of the granting of
the original variance any time a building permit is required. However, the Code also authorizes
the Zoning Board to grant a six month extension if it is found that the circumstances of the case
warrant such an extension. In this particular instance, the project has been delayed due to the
need to resolve outstanding issues.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B.
Staff Comments:
Per Section 2.10.2 (K) of the Land Use Code, the Board may grant a six month extension "for
good cause shown". Therefore the only thing the Board is considering is whether or not there is
a good reason for granting an extension and that a six month extension is "reasonable and
necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case". The Board is not rehearing the original
appeal, which resulted in approval of the proposed construction. According to statements in the
Applicant's May 29, 2003, letter to the Board, there are two circumstances which have delayed
the project. First, the owners decided to further explore alternative sites in response to adverse
ZB. _ une 12, 2003
Page 9
comments from City staff. Second, the environmental issues and public improvements
surrounding this site have yet to be resolved.
Dickson recused herself from the Board.
Banes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is on the comer of College Avenue
and Willow Street. The existing office building will be demolished. Barnes noted where the
new office building would be located. Barnes stated what would be changed on the second
property.
Lingle asked if the Board was only allowed to grant one six month extension. Barnes replied yes
and said that the entire time limit for a variance cannot exceed twelve months.
Applicant Participation:
Brad March, attorney for Schrader Oil, addressed the Board. March stated that the basis for the
request was prompted by the City's Engineering Department. March said some issues have
arose and the Applicant has not been able to pursue plans for upgrading the property such as
issues with a vintage gas holder and street improvements on Willow Street and North College
Avenue. March felt both the City's project and Schrader's project occurring concurrently would
cause unnecessary congestion. March stated the Schrader's plan on submitting for building
permit in January.
Barnes stated that the filing of a building permit application in January does not meet the
requirements of Code regarding the valid time limit for a variance —a permit has to be obtained
six months from the original variance or extension.
March stated that there was no reason why the Applicant could not obtain a building permit by
January.
Miscio asked March what has actually been done regarding the project. March responded that
plans have been drawn and need to be completed. Some issues have come up for the Schrader
project such as the state raising concern regarding the gas holder and the contamination. March
stated soil samples have been completed.
Board Discussion:
Hall wanted Mr. Klinger, representative for the City's Engineering Department, to describe the
City's street project. Klinger was the project manager for the North College improvements.
Klinger stated his concerns with the coordination and supported the extension.
Miscio was in favor of the extension due to the conflict. Lingle agreed. Miscio made a motion
to approve Appeal numbers 2403A and 2404A for a six -moth extension (until January 9, 2004)
due to the conflict with the City which precluded the Applicant from official starting
construction during the formally approved time. Miscio stated that the approval of the request
ZBA . : 12, 2003
Page 10
was also based on the recommendation of Mr. Klinger's recommendation. Hall seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Hall, Lingle, Miscio, and Stockover.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO. 2426 - Approved
Address:
800 West Mountain Avenue
Petitioner:
Keira Harkin
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6 (E) (4)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required street side -yard setback along Grant Street from 15 feet
to 5.5 feet in order to allow a 12.5 foot, one-story addition to the back of the existing home. The
existing home is already at a 5.5 foot setback from the Grant Street lot line, and the addition will
line up with the existing wall.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The owner originally wanted to build a second floor addition, however to satisfy the Historic
Preservation Office it was determined that a one-story addition would be allowed instead. To
maximize the one-story addition, it is desirable to make it the same width as the house. The
house is already nonconforming, and the addition will not encroach any further into the required
setback. The property line is 20 feet behind the curb, so there is adequate setback from the
street.
Staff Comments:
The property line along Grant Street is 20 feet behind the curb. Therefore, the addition will be
25 feet from the street. In some previous appeals regarding setbacks on comer lots, the Board
has determined that the purpose and intent of the street setback is satisfied whenever the property
line is this far behind the street. In fact the Board made that determination regarding a 2002
street side setback variance for the property directly across the street.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is on the corner of Mountain
Avenue and Grant Avenue. The property currently has a garage that is accessed from Grant
Avenue rather than the alley. The existing home is already about 5 %: feet from the property line
along Grant instead of the required 15 feet. The proposal would be to build an addition and line-
up with the existing wall of the house along Grant Avenue. The house is currently 25 feet from
the curb along Grant Avenue.
ZB,_ ane 12, 2003
Page 11
Applicant Participation:
Keira Harkin, 800 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Harkin stated that she was
trying to be compliant with the Historical Society. Harkin stated the bedrooms in the home have
no closets and the bedrooms are small, which is one of the reasons for the addition.
Board Discussion:
The Board discussed which standard they wanted to use. Hall made a motion to approve appeal
number 2426 based on the equal to or better than standard. Hall stated the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance was requested was the setback from the lot line to allow
adequate air, light and ventilation from neighboring buildings. Hall noted that the Board in the
past has found that corner lots with a parkway have met the perceived setback requirement. The
proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard because the Applicant was restricted from
putting a second -story on the property by the Historical Society. Hall stated that approval would
not be detrimental to the public good. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Lingle, Miscio, and Stockover.
Nays: None.
Other Business
There was no other business.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
�. On
d �✓ Cch a�
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
! Petitioner's Letter A
To: Planning Variance Board of Ft. Collins, Colo.
From: Andy & Jane Looney
Date: 05/15/03
Re: Setback variance — 2702 Bradford Sq. Ft. Collins, Colorado
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are requesting a setback variance for our back yard so we can add a dining
room to our house. Our residence is in The Square at Kensington South, a
homeowners association of sixty-two homes. Most of the homes are located
around two large landscaped squares and two cul de sacs in Southwest Ft.
Collins. The lots in our subdivision are small because the original concept of the
neighborhood was that homes do not need large lots due to all the open space
in front of the houses. The footprint of our house is only 1020 sq. ft. We have a
shallow back yard. It is possible that the house was placed too far from the
street causing the shallow back yard. Since the house is small, there is no
dining room -just an area large enough for a small table. The kitchen and eating
area are on the back yard side of the house making this is the obvious place for
a dining room. We understand that there is a fifteen -foot setback in the back
yard and we would like to add an eleven -foot dining room. This would leave a
ten -foot space between the proposed addition and the property line. Designers
have told us that an eleven -foot room is the minimum size for an adequate
dining room. Thank you for considering this request for a setback variance.
Sincerely,
Andy and Jane Looney
May 29, 2003
Mr. Peter Barnes
Zoning Department
The City of Fort Collins
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 90524
Petitioner's Letter B
Q., FISHER, ARCHITECT
Re: Shrader Oil Company Variance Extension for new office facility
Dear Peter,
This letter is to serve as a request for an extension of the variance granted to Schrader Oil
Company for their property at 320 North College Avenue. As you will recall the Zoning
Board of Appeals granted this property a variance to construct a new office building on
January 9; 2003. It is our understanding that if a building permit is not obtained, prior to
six months after the variance approval date, the variance will expire. The end of that six-
month period will be July 9, 2003. As we are currently not in a position to apply to the
City for a building permit it is not realistic to expect that we can finish our preparation and .
the City can complete its review and approval prior to the expiration date.
There are two sets of circumstances, which have delayed the projects ability to move
forward as yet. First, since there was so much adverse comment from City staff, during the
review of the variance, the owners decided to further explore other sites for the project,
which were ultimately exhausted. Second, the environmental issues surrounding this site
and the adjacent Azatlan Center have yet to be resolved and it has been explained to Mr.
Brad March of March, Liley,& Olive, P.C.', the Schrader's attorney, by City staff that the
immediate commencement of this project could create problems for the Public
improvements nearby. Please see the attached email, dated May 21, 2003 from Mr. March
for further information regarding this second set of circumstances.
The first set of circumstances caused an initial delay in the preparation of a building permit
submittal. The second set of circumstances is still on going. As I am sure it will be
understood, the owner did not want to risk the expense of architectural and engineering
services required to make a permit submittal if the facilities were going to be relocated or
if there were environmental circumstances, which prohibit or inhibit the project -
Therefore, it is requested that the variance be extended an additional six months. This will
provide the necessary time to.prepare the construction drawings and obtain a building
permit provided there is normal and reasonable cooperation by City staff in processing the
building permit. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerel}
Greg D.
XC: Step
Howe - Schrader Oil Co.
Brad March — March, Liley & Olive, P.C.
3115 CLYDE ST. - FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 • PHONE 970 484.8433 � FAX 970. 484.2229