HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/09/2003•
0
Minutes approved by the Board at the November 13, 2003 Meeting
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Dleeting— October 9, 2003
8:30 a.m.
11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11
Jj Chairperson: Steve Remington 11 Phone: (H) 223-713s
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday October 9, 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
Steve Remington
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Donahue
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eelnrran, Deputy City Attorney
Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Dickson made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 11, 2003, meeting.
Lingle seconded the motion. The motion passed with Stockover abstaining.
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 2
3. APPEAL NO. 2443: Approved with conditions.
Address:
1501 Emigh Street
Petitioner:
Dean and Julie McCollum
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D)(2)(d)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to
3 feet in order to allow the construction of a patio cover over an existing concrete patio.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A.
Staff Comments:
It may be difficult to consider this appeal as a hardship variance since there is nothing unusual
about the situation. With regards to porch covers, the setback is measured from the support posts
to the property line, and the roof overhang is allowed to encroach 2 feet into the required
setback. In this particular instance, the petitioner's wanted to put the posts at a 3-foot setback,
with no overhang. Moving the posts in 2 feet would result in a structure that complies with the
code, and the roof would be in the same location as proposed. This is similar to an appeal heard
at the September 11, 2003, ZBA meeting wherein a trellis structure was constructed over an
existing concrete patio and the posts were 3.5 feet from the lot line. The Board determined that
situation to be "equal to or better than", based on the design of the structure, including the roof,
being very open and thereby meeting the intent of the setback standard with regards to light and
ventilation. This particular proposal differs from the September item because this proposed roof
is a solid roof rather than air open trellis.
Staff Presentation:
A letter was read in support of the appeal by Gordon Hazard of 1413 Emigh Street. Barnes
presented slides relevant to this appeal. The living portion of the house is offset from the garage.
The Applicant wished to construct the patio cover behind the garage. The support posts for the
porch cover will be 3 feet from the lot line and there will be no cave overhang. Barnes stated
that the Code allows cave overhangs to encroach two feet into the required setback. The roof
decking will let some filtered light through the structure. The material that will be used is called
Sun Tough.
Applicant Participation:
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 3
Dean McCollum, 1501 Emigh Street, addressed the Board. McCollum stated that one of the
main reasons for his request was that lie wanted a similar roofline as the garage. If the posts
were placed in compliance with the Code a different roofline would have to be used and would
also cause some aesthetic problems.
Hall asked if the fence was on the property line. McCollum stated yes.
Remington asked the Applicant to describe Sum Tough. McCollum responded that the material
was a smoked Plexiglas. The Applicant wanted to use Sun Tough to allow some light to come
through the structure. The roof system was solid.
There was a discussion held regarding how the proposal was equal to or better than the standard.
Board Discussion
Lingle agreed with the Applicant's comments regarding structural difficulties. Lingle stated that
the equall to or better than standard should be used because the roofline would not be any further
out than what the Code would allow. It was the issue of the location of the posts. Lingle wanted
the following condition placed on the approval: the overhang could not extend beyond where the
posts are and that the patio could not be enclosed without coming before the Board.
Lingle made a motion to approve appeal number 2443 based on the equal to or better than
• standard. Lingle stated the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The
general purpose of the standard was to allow adequate light, ventilation, and privacy along the
side -yard. Lingle stated that the Applicant's proposal will meet the standard due to the fact that
the roof overhang will not extend closer to the property line than what would normally be
allowed. Lingle placed the following conditions on the approval: the overhang can not be
extended beyond what was shown in the application and that the patio cover can not be enclosed
without coming before the Board. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington, Lingle, Dickson and Stockover.
Nays: None.
4. APPEAL NO. 2444: Approved with conditions.
Address:
1604 Richards Place
Petitioner:
Leslie Jones
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6 (E)(3)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to
14 feet, one inch in order to allow a screened porch to be constructed over the existing concrete
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 4
patio slab. The porch will line up with the existing north wall of the house which is already at a
14 feet, one inch setback.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The petitioner believes that lining the new porch up with the existing wall of the house would
look better. Additionally, tying the new roof into the existing roof is accomplished better by
lining it up. The lot is only 90 feet in depth, so it is a shallow lot.
Staff Comments:
It is a shallow lot, and the porch will line-up with the existing wall, so there may be some
consideration for a hardship.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The lots that front on Richards Place are all the
90 feet in depth. A typical lot is 180 feet in depth in this zoning district. The back wall of the
house is already at a 14 foot, 1 inch setback. The proposed porch would line-up with the existing
wall. The porch is already under construction. The Applicant received a stop work. When the
Applicant applied for the permit it was detennined that the rear -yard setback was less than the
required15 feet. The concrete patio already exists and some it of has been enclosed. The patio is
screened.
Applicant Participation:
Leslie Jones, 1604 Richards Place, addressed the Board. Dennis Parkhurst, aid to the Applicant
with the project, also addressed the Board. Parkhurst stated that the project would look better
with a common roofline. The building has been there since 1958.
Miscio asked if a building permit was obtained prior to beginning construction. Parkhurst stated
they did not have one, but one has been applied for at the Building Department. Miscio asked
staff if the home was in compliance at the time of construction. Barnes stated that he did not
know. The zoning regulations between 1955 and 1962 were somewhat vague, and Barnes was
unaware of the requirements in 1958.
Remington asked if the chimney was exempt from the setback requirements. Barnes stated that
the existing wall would not comply with the 15 foot setback requirement. Cantilevers are
allowed to encroach two feet into the required setback. Barnes was unaware if the chimney was
cantilevered.
Board Discussion:
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 5
Lingle was concerned with continuing a non -conforming setback an additional 10 feet, although
lie stated that the variance request could meet either the hardship standard or the equal to or
better than standard. Miscio agreed with Lingle.
Remington asked staff if the lot was considered shallow for the City and the zoning district.
Barnes stated both. Baines said that in new subdivisions that are being developed under the
Land Use Code requirements and there has been increased density, 90 feet is not unconnnon as
far as the depth. This occurs in zones where an 8 foot rear -yard setback is required. In
subdivisions that were approved prior to the Land Use Code 90 feet would be considered a
shallow lot. In this particular neighborhood, the majority of lots are between 150 and 190 feet in
depth in the NCL zone.
There was a discussion held regarding whether granting the approval would set a precedent or
not. The Board agreed upon making the approval site specific.
Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2444. Remington stated that the approval would
not be detrimental to the public good. Remington based his approval on the hardship standard
due to the lot being shallow for the zoning district and neighborhood. Remington also noted that
the house was already non -conforming. Remington placed a condition on the approval that the
sides of the enclosure could not be made solid without the Applicant coming before the Board.
Lingle seconded the motion.
• Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover.
Nays: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2445: Approved.
Address:
220 East Oak Street
Petitioner:
Earme Garner
Zone:
NCB
Section:
4.8(D)(3)(C) and 4.8(1))(3)(d)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from the north lot line from 15 feet to
5.6 feet and reduce the required street -side setback along the east lot line (Mathews Street) from
15 feet to 0 feet in order to allow the previously existing church gymnasium to be reconstructed
in the same location as it existed before it was destroyed by the March 2003 snow storm.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B.
Staff Comments:
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 6
None.
Staff Presentation:
Bares presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the property is located at the
comer of Oak Street and Mathews Street. The church gymnasium was destroyed by the March
2003 blizzard. The Applicant proposed to rebuild the gym in the same location and size as to
what previously existed. Barnes stated that the Applicant requested two variances: the north lot
line (rear lot line) the Applicant proposed to reduce the rear setback requirement from 15 feet to
five and a half feet, which is where the building was previously situated; and then the street side
comer setback along Mathews Street from 15 feet to zero feet. The wall will be placed as it was
previously situated. A fence is currently securing the area where the gym was previous to the
March snow storm. A triplex building was most affected by the proposed gym wall. The
neighborhood has buildings constructed of mixed materials such as brick, stucco, concrete
blocks, etc. The neighborhood was also a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The
building was considered a non -conforming building in that it did not comply with the required
setbacks. The code has a provision to allow for the reconstruction of non -conforming buildings
that are damaged by an accidental cause or a natural catastrophe. The March snow storm was a
natural catastrophe, but if a building permit was obtained within six months from the day of the
calamity, the Applicant would be allowed to reconstruct the building in the same location and
size as previously existed without the need for a variance. The Applicant had issues with the
insurance company and it took the Applicant a long time to submit their plans for a building
permit. The Applicant missed the six month window.
Miscio asked if the Code should be modified regarding the issue with the insurance company and
if the time period should be changed due to unusual circumstance. Bares replied that that is the
role of the Board to determine if there was an unusual circumstance that prevented code
compliance.
Lingle asked staff if the Applicant's proposal was going to be a greater impact than what was
there before. Barnes stated that the Applicant proposed the same bulk and height. Barnes said
that he believed the proposal will be exactly the same regarding impact. Lingle asked if the
triplex building was built after the original church building. Barnes stated the triplex was very
old and he was sure that it was there before the church.
Applicant Participation:
Eamie Gamer, representative for the Community of Christ, addressed the Board. Garner stated
that he came to Fort Collins in 1968 as a youth minister for the Community of Christ. Garner
said that one of the advantages of coming to the church was because it had a gymnasium for
youth ministries. Gamer reviewed the mission statement and the background of the Church.
The Church was purchased in 1940, although the Church was established prior to 1940.
Garner presented slides relevant to the appeal. Garner stated that the gym should be referred to
as an activity center. Several events are hosted in the gymnasium. Garner stated that the
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 7
elevations that were submitted with Board packets will not likely occur because a basketball
hoop will be placed where the east window exists on the drawings. Gamer also stated that there
will not be eight windows on the north wall.
Gamer stated that the hardship was that without the gym many programs will no longer exists.
The loss of the gym within the last few months has caused folks to realize the loss of the facility.
Garner stated by not having the gym in the future the Church would not be able to contribute as
much to the downtown area.
Gamer stated the complications with the insurance company. The insurance would cover what
was there and any upgrades to comply with the Building Code, but no more.
Lingle wanted the Applicant to repeat what he stated regarding the architectural elevations.
Lingle was concerned about the large east facing window. Garner stated that the east facing
window will not be there as well as the curvature at the top. Garner stated that the elevations are
done in all brick, and the insurance company is not willing to build a new brick building. The
code does not require the building to be brick Gamer stated that the neighborhood was mixed in
building materials and gave examples. Gainer said the final application will meet code
requirements and will not be all brick. Garner suggested that the material will be split face brick
trim, and some stone around the entrance of the gym.
Lingle was not concerned about the materials, but the large bulk not being broken by a window.
Lingle felt the proposal was not in character with the neighborhood.
Barnes explained that the east wall was part of the gymnasium and the basketball hoop would be
attached to the wall. This was not conveyed to the architect. Lingle stated that he understood,
but to take the window away and not have windows anywhere else was out of character with the
neighborhood. Barnes stated that the Applicant would design a building that complies with the
code regarding fagade treatments. Barnes stated the large window would present a problem with
the functionality of the gymnasium.
Stockover asked if the Applicant had received the building pennit within the allowable six
months would there be any control over the architectural design. Bames said no, although now
they are required to comply with the building design standards. Stockover stated that the design
will be reviewed. Bames explained what architectural details would be reviewed by staff.
Lingle was concerned regarding hearing a variance request where inaccurate drawings have been
submitted. Barnes stated the purpose of the drawings was to give the Board au idea of the bulk
and mass. Barnes read the code requirements to the Board.
Garner wanted to respond to Lingle's comment. Gamer stated that the Church does not want to
have as plain as looking building as it was and the Church's goal was to have a nice looking
building. Garner stated that there was no way to incorporate the window and still have a
basketball hoop. Gamer stated that the architect may come up with some ideas.
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 8
Dickson stated that she did not have a problem with the gymnasium. Dickson was concerned
about the east elevation jutting to the property line. Dickson wondered if the Applicant would be
able to have smaller courts.
Garner replied that the existing building barely acconnnodated a volleyball court (standard
regulation). The building did not allow for full basketball. Garner stated the insurance company
was required to build an exact replacement building, and will cause complications if altered.
Gamer did not want to lose space.
Dickson asked the Applicant about lot 25. Garner stated that lot 25 was a rear parking lot.
Dickson wanted the footprint of the building to be moved slightly to the west to give the property
more of a setback. Dickson wanted to know the feasibility of the Applicant performing such a
task. Garner replied that he did not know. Garner stated that the other issue with the insurance
company was whether they were willing to replace the footings and foundation. Garner stated
that if the footings and foundation are removed they could perhaps be placed anywhere. Garner
stated there has always been seven feet or more between the sidewalk and the east end of the
building, which has always been landscaped. Garner stated that a reasonable pleasant image has
been maintained along Mathews Street. Garner preferred not to move the building for several
reasons.
Board Discussion:
Remington asked staff if the dealings with the insurance company could be considered a
hardship. Eckman responded that the Applicant was not arguing that the finances were the
hardship. The hardship was the compliance with the Code because the Applicant would not be
able to build the gym back and perform the Church functions that have been done in the past.
Eckman stated the uniqueness of the property was the gymnasium being damaged by the snow
storm and the complication between the insurance company and the church.
Lingle stated that the hardship cannot be self-imposed. Eckman stated that was true. Lingle
stated that the Board would have to find that the City would have some role to the finding of a
hardship in order to make the hardship not self-imposed on the Church and/or their insurance
company. There was a discussion held regarding the hardship. Eckman stated that all the Board
should look at was the setback requirements. Stockover stated that the Board had to look at the
surrounding area and it was the house next door that was not in character with the neighborhood.
Stockover stated that the Church should not be penalized by the house that has become an
apartment. Stockover noted that everything in Old Town was built to the property line.
Stockover stated that the Board should condition the approval that the building would have some
architectural similarity to what has been proposed by the Applicant.
Hall agreed with Stockover, although Hall struggled with the hardship. Stockover stated that the
hardship was the damage done by the snow storm. Dickson disagreed and stated that the issue
was the setback. Barnes stated that part of the hardship was that if the Applicant complied with
the setbacks the width of the gymnasium would be reduced by 10 feet. Dickson was in favor of
the Applicant not complying with the north setback, but that compliance be enforced on the east
setback. The building would have to be moved 15 feet and Barnes stated that may require the
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 9
Applicant to obtain a parking variance. Stockover stated that the proposal was in character with
the neighborhood.
Dickson asked staff' what the definition was for the NCB zone. Barnes read the definition.
Remington stated he was looking at the request in terms of a hardship. The Board discussed
tabling the appeal until the November meeting and stated that they needed more specific
architectural drawings.
Gamer commented on the ramp entrance to the gym. The ramp was in line with the end of the
gym, and if the gym was moved back 15 feet the ramp entrance and foyer would also protrude
out and the buildings would line-up. The entrance would have to be tom down and Garner felt
this idea was a hardship and would not be covered by the insurance company.
Miscio asked Gamer what caused all the delays. Gamer stated that the insurance company did
not cause the delay, but it was a combination of getting everyone to understand all of the issues.
Gamer stated that he tried to meet the six month deadline.
Stockover was in support of approving the appeal. Miscio agreed with Stockover. Remington
stated that he had mixed feelings regarding the six month issue. Remington stated he felt there
was an exceptional situation with the snowstorm and the Applicant not being able to rebuild the
gymnasium that has been there for several years. Lingle was in favor with Dickson's comments.
. Lingle stated that he could not support the appeal under the hardship standard. There was a
discussion held regarding the hardship.
Barnes thought the Board should table the appeal. Gamer reiterated his argument. Hall stated
that he was having trouble with the hardship. Hall said the hardship was the code. Eckman
stated that the Board had to consider if the City's setback law imposed a hardship on the
Applicant. Eckman stated the six month limitation did not have anything to do with the
hardship. Hall asked staff if the Applicant would be able to ask for a variance regarding the six
month limitation. Barnes replied no because the requirement was in Article 1 and variance and
modifications are only allowed to be granted to standards in Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use
Code.
Remington summarized the Board's comments. Remington felt it was appropriate to table the
request for next month's meeting to avoid a tie vote. Dickson was in favor of tabling the appeal
and stated she would like a parking study done. Lingle agreed with Dickson. Lingle made a
motion to move to table the appeal until the next meeting. Lingle asked the Applicant to return
with specific information regarding the impact on the use of the property if the setback along
Mathews was adhered to or in between 0 and 15. Lingle also asked that the Applicant bring
more specific architectural elevations. Dickson seconded the motion. Stockover stated that he
was going to vote no on the motion because he felt the Board was close to malting a decision.
Stockover stated that the City has well qualified people to review the plans. Hall interjected and
explained why he was on the fence. There was a discussion held regarding the hardship. The
• motion to table failed. There was a discussion held regarding the parking area.
ZBA September 11, 2003
Page 10
Vote:
Yeas: Lingle and Dickson.
Nays: Miscio, Hall, Remington and Stockover.
Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2445 based oil the hardship standard.
Remington stated that approval was not detrimental to the public good. Remington stated that
there were two components of the hardship standard: (1) exceptional situation in terms of a use
that has existed on the property for 20 to 30 years and an unusual snow storm that caused the
collapse of the building, and for the Applicant to comply with the strict adherence to the standard
would deny the use that was already existing; (2) exceptional physical conditions in that if the
Board forced the Applicant to comply mature landscaping would be lost and the Board would
impose another hardship on the Applicant in that they would need another variance for parking.
Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Remington and Stockover.
Nays: Lingle and Dickson.
8. Other Business
at 10:35 a.m.
iteve ington, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Petitioner's Letter A
0
171
C� J
ti �+ tom; Ity ...
%E�11 Z Ct9f13
Dean and Julie McCollum
1501 Emigh St
Fort Collins. CO 80524
To The Zoning Board of Appeals:
We are requesting a variance from the requirements of the Land Use Code as it
applies to the construction of a cover for an existing concrete patio. This request is by
reason (1) in the Zoning Variance Review (... exceptional situations unique to the
property...). We are asking that the post and beam for a patio cover be moved to three
feet from the property line as opposed to the five foot code. The five foot requirement
could cause headroom problems, a poor aesthetic line with the roof of the garage, as
well as placing the post on a side walk. Thank you for your consideration in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Dean McCollum
Petitioner's Letter B
220 East Oak
September 25, 2003
C01-1-1.11-iutlif� of Cris-f
970-4829206 Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Fort Collins
281 North College
Fors Collins, Colorado 80524
Yo Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Dcar Board,
Please find attached our plat plan, elevations and lists ofproperty owners
within 150 feet of our property.
Our appeal is based on hardship regarding the replacement of our church gym which
was destroy in the March 03 snow storm. We were not able to get all levels of
approvals through our World Church insurance carrier in time to meet the six month
replacement period of the lost building. We would not have needed this variance had
we met that schedule.
We look forward to replacing the same building with code upgrades as well as exterior
appearances upgrades so we can continue to bring ministries to the community as well
as our own church membership.
Sincerely yours,
Earnest Garner
Building Replacement Committee Co -Chair
CC. Risk Management - World Church
Dave Simons, Co - Chair & Pastor
We proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities ofjoy, hope, love, and peace