HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/10/2004•
•
0
Minutes approved by the Board at the July 8, 2004 Meeting
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — June 10, 2004
8:30 a.m.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760)
11 Chairperson: Steve Remington I Phone: (H) 223-7138 B
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday June 10, 2004, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dwight Hall
Dana McBride
Andy Miscio
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Alison Dickson
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 Chairperson Stockover, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
McBride made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2004, meeting.
Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed with Hall abstaining.
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 2
3. APPEAL NO.2463—Approved with conditions.
Address:
2024 East Harmony Road
Petitioner:
John Marks
Zone:
HC
Section:
3.8.7(C)(1)(k)
Background:
The variance would allow a sign advertising a home occupation to be larger than 4 square feet
per face along an arterial street. Specifically, the variance would allow a sign to identify the
Psychic Kay home occupation to be 10 square feet per face instead of the allowed 4 square feet
per face. The proposed sign would be located along Harmony Road, in front of the house. (This
appeal was discussed at the May 13, 2004 ZBA meeting and was tabled to June 10, 2004 in order
to allow the applicant to submit revised drawings and a sign plan, requesting a sign of about 10
square feet instead of the originally requested 24 square feet).
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
This property is at the intersection of Harmony and Timberline, which is one of the largest
intersections in the city. Cars travel along Harmony at 55 mph, so an advertising sign needs to
be large enough to be seen by motorists well in advance in order to avoid sudden stops along a
State highway. The property is zoned to allow commercial uses. If the building were not
occupied as a residence, but rather entirely as an office, the property would have a sign
allowance of 115 square feet. This would mean that a sign as large as 57.5 square feet per side
would be allowed for a commercial use.
Staff Comments:
The Board has granted several sign variances to allow home occupation signs to exceed 4 square
feet when the property is along a high speed major arterial street. Harmony Road is a State
highway and it is high speed along this section of Harmony. However, the 24 square foot sign
that was proposed on May 13, 2004, is considerably larger than the size allowed for other similar
variances. Those variances have allowed the signs to be around 10 square feet. The revised
submittal of 10 square feet is more in keeping with other variances. The revised sign, in addition
to being considerably smaller than the originally proposed sign, has far less mass since there is
no base underneath the sign face. This property is somewhat different from previous ones the
Board has heard in that it is surrounded by commercial uses. If the Board does grant a variance
for a size larger than 4 square feet, then Staff recommends that the Board consider placing some
conditions on the color of the proposed sign, building illumination, use of Christmas lights,
vehicle mounted signs, and/or other types of devices that would be designed to attract attention
to the home occupation.
Staff Presentation:
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 3
The Board considered the appeal at the May 13, 2004, meeting. Barnes said there was
10
considerable discussion between the Board, the Applicant, and the neighboring property owner.
The Board tabled the item until today. The Board wanted the Applicant to return with a
complete signage package including a 10 square foot sign and information regarding the colors
and materials. The Applicant proposed a 10 square foot per face sign. The new sign was 2x5
supported by two, 2x4 posts on the ends of the sign. As colors, the Applicant proposed a grey
background, black letters, and the pink/flesh colored palm area. The sign would be ground
illuminated with a couple of spotlights. The sign would be placed 7 '/2 feet from the house.
Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Slides provided by David Lawser, the property
owner to the east, were also presented. Lawser provided slides of other home occupation signs.
Barnes stated he would point out which slides (given by Lawser) received variances.
The business was on the corner of East Harmony Road and South Timberline Road. Both
Harmony and Timberline were considered major arterial streets. The property was zoned HC
(Harmony Corridor) and included residential properties. The Applicant removed the Christmas
lights and the palm from the window. Barnes illustrated the proposed location of the sign. The
neighboring property used to be a house but it underwent a commercial conversion process
which included being platted, being landscaped, made handicap accessible, and in compliance
with the building code. Elements Day Spa, another neighboring property, also underwent a
commercial conversion process.
• Barnes showed Lawser's photographs and noted which ones received a variance request.
Applicant Participation:
John Marks, 2024 East Harmony Road, addressed the Board. Marks referred to the proposed
sign included in board packets. Marks stated there was a discussion last month for the sign to
blend with the house. The sign will be approximately six feet in height and there will be three
feet from the bottom of the sign to the ground. Marks noted two spotlights will be used to light
the sign. The sign was 2x5 and supported by cedar posts on each side.
Opposed to the Appeal:
Dave Lawser, 2016 East Harmony Road, addressed the Board. Lawser read a prepared
statement. Lawser stated he was not proud of the neighboring property to the east of him. He
felt that Psychic Kay wanted the privilege of commercial property benefits without the
responsibility of commercial property regulations. Lawser wanted her to either convert to
commercial or live by the regulations outlined in the home occupation ordinance. Lawser felt
the hardship was on himself and the citizens of Fort Collins. He stated the property was a public
nuisance. Lawser wanted the Board to uphold the Sign Code and found the proposed sign
offensive. Lawser questioned Mr. Marks relationship with Psychic Kay and stated they did not
live on the property.
Board Discussion:
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 4
Miscio asked if the owner of the business had to live on the property for the business to be
considered a home occupation. Barnes said yes and stated it was the first time he heard the
allegation that the Applicant does not live on the property.
Marks stated he did live on the property with his wife. He replied that he was not selling cars.
Psychic Kay was not present because she was hospitalized over the weekend. Miscio asked
Marks if he had other residences. Marks said no. Miscio said Lawser's comments were not
accurate.
Hall wanted Barnes to explain the rationale used by previous applicants for similar cases. Barnes
replied that the home was usually on a major arterial street where speed limits were faster. Often
people need bigger signs to see the sign from a distance and to avoid people from making sudden
stops or turns. The Board in the past has agreed that a slightly larger sign was appropriate due to
safety issues.
Stockover did not have a problem with approving the variance request. He noted that the
Applicant has taken down the Christmas lights and the window signs. In the future, according to
Stockover, the comer will become commercial. The Applicant has toned down the colors and
size of the sign. The Board was not an enforcing agent. Stockover was in favor of approving the
request with the proposed colors and height. He felt a maximum wattage should be considered
on the two spotlights. Stockover asked Barnes if there was a time limit on how long the lights
could illuminate the sign.
Miscio stated he was struggling with the hardship. He noted that the business was by
appointment only. Marks addressed Miscio concerns and said 50% of the business was walk-ins.
Miscio asked Marks how long he intended to occupy the premises. Marks responded that his
lease was for the next two years. The owner informed Marks that he could purchase the property
if he wanted to.
Lawser addressed Stockover's comments and questioned his motivation. Stockover stated the
property was commercial in nature and at a busy intersection. Lawser disagreed. Hall asked
Lawser if it was the nature of the sign or the nature of the business that he found offense.
Lawser replied both.
Barnes clarified that the speed limit was 50 mph on Harmony Road not 55 as indicated on the
agenda. Hall asked Barnes if there were restriction on the lighting of signs. Barnes replied no.
The property was not in the Residential Sign District but a commercial zone so there were no
regulations regarding the hours of illumination although, the Board was able to place such a
condition.
Miscio commented that even if the sign was not approved the business would still be allowed to
continue. Lawser found it offensive that Marks did not have to upgrade the property. McBride
wanted staff to illustrate the location of the sign. Lawser did not want the sign to be six feet in
height. Barnes said that according to the drawings the sign will be five feet in height. McBride
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 5
is Road.
the proposed sign would not be as predominant as the commercial signs along Harmony
Road.
Hall was in favor of the appeal and felt discussion about the lights would be appropriate. Miscio
asked if other board members had a problem with the business existing on that particular corner
for the next five years. Hall stated that the issue was a neighborhood dispute and that if it were
for a dentist office there would not be a huge debate. Hall felt the sign was not the issue.
Lawser said the sign looked like a for sale sign and it was indecent.
Stockover wanted to approve the request as proposed with the following stipulations: (1) sign
was no more than five feet from the current ground level; (2) five feet back from the property
line; (3) maximum of 100 wattage lights in the spotlights and aimed properly; (4) lights shut off
at midnight; and (5) no other signage or lights of any type be allowed.
Miscio asked staff if the board could place a time limit on the variance to revisit it in one year.
Eckman replied yes as long as it was reasonably related to the variance itself. Miscio was
concerned with traffic slowing down to copy a phone number. Stockover asked if Miscio wanted
to tie it to the two year lease. Miscio wanted one year. Stockover felt it was too restrictive.
Miscio agreed and told Lawser the proposal with restrictions would be better than what the
Applicant could do.
There was a discussion held regarding the difference between a pole mounted and a monument
• type sign. Lawser said he would make a compromise as long as the height of the sign did not
exceed four feet.
Miscio asked if Marks was agreeable to a sign that was four feet high and two feet off the
ground. Marks agreed.
Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2463 as proposed with regards to color and
materials based on the hardship standard. The granting of variance was not detrimental to the
public good. Stockover referred to the petitioner's hardship and noted that the home occupation
was in a commercial zone on a major arterial street. Stockover placed the following conditions
on the approval: (1) the sign was to be a maximum of four feet in height from the current ground
level; (2) the sign would be five feet from the property line; (3) a maximum of 100 wattage
spotlights that would be turned off at midnight each night; (4) no other signage allowed (window
signs and car signs) and there would be no Christmas tree lights hanging from the building, an
exception was the open and closed sign; and (5) the approval was limited for two years to
coincide with the lease on the property until June of 2006. Lawser wanted the Board to consider
that the lights be placed on a timer. The Board agreed and Stockover amended the motion.
Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, McBride, and Hall.
Nays: None.
0
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 6
4. APPEAL NO.2465—Approved.
Address: 1601 Remington Street
Petitioner: Troy Jones
Zone: LMN
Section: 3.5.2(D)(1) and 3.8.19(B)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Prospect Road from 30 feet to
10.5 feet by allowing the "contextual setback" standard of the Land Use Code to apply to the
side lot line along Prospect instead of to the front lot line along Remington Street.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A regarding the equal to or better than standard.
Staff Comments:
The petitioner explained his equal to or better than justification in his letter.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was at the comer of Prospect and
Remington with the house facing Remington. In this particular zoning district, the Code required
that a building of any type be setback at least 30 feet from the property line along an arterial
street. Since Prospect was an arterial street a newly constructed building had to be 30 feet from
that property line. The lot in question was 50 feet in width. A setback of 30 feet would leave 20
feet of buildable area with a five foot setback from the south lot line, leaving only a 15-foot
building envelope. The Applicant asked to vary two sections of the code: (1) the 30 foot setback;
and (2) vary the way the contextual setback requirement of 3.8.19(B) of the code was applied.
The contextual setback regulation allowed a person to match the front setback of an existing
building on an abutting property. If the lot next door was setback 15 feet then the code allowed
one to use the contextual setback and to locate the new building 15 feet from the front lot line,
even though the zone required a 30 foot setback. The contextual setback applied only to the
front setback. The Applicant proposed to vary that requirement by allowing it to be used to
utilize a contextual side setback along Prospect to match the existing setback that was there.
The proposed detached garage will be further away from the existing house. Access to the
garage would be through the alley.
Applicant Participation:
Troy Jones, representative for M. Torgerson Architects, addressed the Board. Jones illustrated
the 30-foot setback and stated 3/4 of the house did not comply with the setback. The previous
garage was damaged and destroyed in the March 2003 blizzard. Jones said the contextual
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 7
• setback did not allow side -yard setbacks to be counted as something that can be reduced. Jones
said his proposal satisfied the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that
complied with the standard. Jones said the purpose of the contextual setback standard was
protection from the public view. In this instance the public would view the side yard. Jones
illustrated that other properties in the area had less than a 30-foot setback and explained which
property he used to establish the contextual setback.
Hall asked if the property was a private residence. Jones replied yes. Hall asked if the garage
would be used by the residents. Jones referred Hall to the property owner.
Michael Jensen, 3603 Eagle Lane, addressed the Board. He was the owner of the property.
Stockover stated the garage looked like a home and asked if it was going to be used as an
apartment. Jensen replied no and stated the door design was used for storage of a larger vehicle.
Stockover asked if the property was a rental. Jensen said yes.
Miscio asked Jensen if he intended to keep the property or sell it. Jensen responded that he
intended to keep it.
Board Discussion:
Miscio was in favor of the appeal and felt the Applicant's proposal satisfied the equal to or better
than standard. McBride asked if the sidewalk was against the curb. Barnes commented that the
• sidewalk was attached. Stockover was in favor of the appeal.
Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2465 based on the equal to or better than
standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The purpose of
the standard was to avoid any obtrusive structures to promote visibility, air flow, etc. The
property met the purpose of the standard. Miscio stated the proposal would enhance the property
and was consistent with the neighborhood. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, McBride, and Hall.
Nays: None.
5. APPEAL NO.2466—Tabled until the July 8, 2004 meeting.
Address:
1300 Coulter Street
Petitioner:
Scott Brink
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 6
• feet for the storage shed that was recently constructed.
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 8
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Moving the shed to comply with the required setback would put it in the middle of the back yard.
The proposed shed location is in keeping with the setbacks of other existing sheds in the
neighborhood.
Staff Comments:
None.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was on the comer of Coulter and
Foxtail Street. It was a comer lot. The shed was recently constructed. The Applicant proposed
to have the shed at a six foot setback from the rear lot line as opposed to the 15-foot required
setback. There was mature landscaping on the property.
Applicant Participation:
Scott Brink, 1300 Coulter Street, addressed the Board. Brink added that the shed was consistent
with other sheds against the property line. Brink stated that if his shed was not over eight feet in
height he would be able to put it on the property line. According to Brink, none of his neighbors
opposed the placement of his shed.
Hall asked Brink how tall the shed was. Brink replied just over 12 feet. The shed was used for
storage. Stockover asked Brink if he had spoken to any of his neighbors prior to building the
shed. Brink said that as he built it his adjoining neighbors talked to him.
Miscio asked Brink if his hardship was moving the shed. Brink stated that he could move it, but
it would be in the middle of the existing yard. Brink did not understand the 15-foot setback
requirement.
Board Discussion:
Miscio thought the appeal fell under the equal to or better than standard rather than a hardship.
Miscio stated that the hardship was self imposed. Stockover asked staff what triggered the
variance request. Barnes replied that a building inspector noticed it and gave Brink a stop work
order. The shed, according to Barnes, was over the limit in size and height. In order for a shed
to not comply with the setbacks it was limited to 120 square feet or eight feet in height. Miscio
asked if the use was legal. Barnes said the shed was a permitted accessory building. Stockover
asked Barnes if a building permit was required. Barnes responded that when a shed exceeded
120 square feet and/or eight feet in height a permit was required. When Brink applied for a
building permit staff noticed the setback discrepancy.
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 9
• Stockover asked Brink if the neighbor on Monterey had a problem with the placement of the
shed. Brink said no. The property on Monterey was open in the back and Stockover felt that this
could be taken into consideration. Stockover was in favor of the appeal. Hall did not want to set
a precedent with approving the appeal and wondered why the approval of Brink's request would
be acceptable.
Barnes said the shed could either be moved or lowered in height. Hall asked Brink how difficult
it would be for him to put on a shed roof instead of a gabled roof. Brink said it was possible and
he would be able to cut off the roof. Stockover said there was still concern with the size of the
shed even if the shed was eight feet in height. Barnes gave the Board several options. Stockover
asked Brink if the shed was actually a 1Oxl4. Brink said yes and felt the shed was in the most
feasible location.
Hall was still concerned with setting a precedent. Brink built the shed without knowledge of the
15-foot setback requirement. The Board agreed that the shed was aesthetically pleasing.
McBride asked if the shed was sitting on a slab. Brink said no and that it was sitting on two
skids. Brink was not in favor of lowering the height of the shed. Barnes agreed with Hall's
concern of setting a precedent. Brink gave examples of several neighboring sheds in similar size
and height.
McBride asked staff if the Board could use aesthetics as a reason to approve an appeal. There
was a discussion held regarding aesthetics and the Board came to the conclusion that it was not
applicable.
• Stockover explained to Brink why the Board needed to follow the rules. Brink had a hard time
understanding the reason behind the 15-foot setback requirement. Hall explained why Brink
needed to have a unique situation. McBride asked how hard it would be for Brink to move the
shed. Brink said the skids should make it easier.
Stockover asked Barnes if he had any suggestions. Barnes stated that the Board could allow the
shed to remain at 140 square feet, but lower the roof to eight feet. There was a discussion held
regarding options. Stockover was adamant about Brink adhering to the rules. McBride asked if
there was anything in the Code regarding temporary versus permanent structures. Bames said
no.
Stockover asked Brink if he needed the shed to be 12 feet in height. Brink said yes due to the
storage of Christmas decoration containers. Miscio felt the alternative would be worse than what
existed.
Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2466 based on the equal to or better than
standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The purpose of
the standard was to promote openness, fresh air, maintain pleasing aesthetics, and maintain
consistency within in the neighborhood. The shed, according to Miscio was aesthetically
pleasing and was placed in the most feasible location on the lot. McBride seconded the motion.
0
Vote:
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 10
Yeas: Miscio and McBride.
Nays: Stockover and Hall.
It was a tie vote and the motion failed. The Board held a discussion regarding aesthetics and
decided that it was not a reason to approve a variance request. Barnes and Eckman discussed the
idea of a landscape buffer behind the shed to hide the mass of the structure. Eckman stated the
setback requirement was there to lessen visual intrusion.
The Board did not have a problem with the appearance of the shed but setting a precedent. The
Board considered tabling the appeal. Miscio made a motion to table the hearing until the July 8,
2004, meeting. Miscio requested documentation from neighbors that the shed was not intrusive
and a potential landscaping plan as well as taking three feet off of the height of the structure.
Stockover seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, McBride, and Hall.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO.2467—Approved.
Address: 719 Benthaven Court
Petitioner: Raymond Sanchez
Zone: RL
Section: 4.3(D)(2)(c)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 6
feet in order to allow the construction of a 432 square foot sunroom on the southeast corner of
the house.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshi
The placement of the house, the size of the lot, and the irregular lot layout does not allow for the
sunroom to be attached anywhere on the backside of the house without encroaching into the
setback. There is a window well and fireplace that does not allow for the sunroom to be located
any closer to the front of the home. There is also a 15-foot easement along the north property
line as well as a drainage ditch along the south (rear) property line, therefore there are no homes
located to the south of this property and the intent of the code is met.
Staff Comments:
The Board has previously considered open space that abuts a lot as a mitigating factor that can be
used to justify an "equal to or better than" variance.
Staff Presentation:
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 11
• Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The lot was an irregular shaped lot on a small
cul-de-sac. Barnes illustrated the drainage ditch and easement behind the property. The
Applicant requested to reduce the rear lot line from 15 feet to six feet. There was an open space
between the Applicant's rear lot line and the homes that would be directly affected by the
addition.
Applicant Participation:
Raymond Sanchez, 719 Benthaven Court, addressed the Board. Sanchez noted the current deck
will be replaced by the sunroom. Sanchez said the property was pie -shaped and had a 15-foot
easement for a sewer. There was no other place to put the proposed addition.
McBride asked Sanchez if there was something precluding him from moving it back. Sanchez
responded there was a fireplace and a window well in the way.
In support of the appeal:
Bob Farnham, 725 Benthaven Court, addressed the Board and expressed his support for the
appeal.
Board Discussion:
• Miscio was in favor of the appeal and stated it was a good example of a hardship. Hall asked
staff if abutting the easement was an issue. Bames replied the Applicant would be able to abut
the easement. Hall agreed with Miscio. Barnes informed the Board that the equal to or better
than standard has been used in similar variance requests due to the open space behind the
property. Hall was in favor of using the equal to or better than standard.
Hall made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2467 based on the equal to or better than
standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general
purpose of the standard was to allow for adequate space, light, ventilation, and air. The ditch
behind the property acted as open space and met the general purpose of the standard.
Compliance with the code would be difficult for the homeowner. Stockover seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, and Hall.
Nays: McBride.
6. APPEAL NO.2468—Approved.
Address:
711 West Mountain Avenue
Petitioner:
Curtis Marwitz
Zone:
NCL
• Section:
4.6(F)(1)(g)
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 12
Background:
The variance would allow the existing enclosed back porch to be removed and a living room
addition constructed in its place with a roof pitch of .25"/12 slope instead of the minimum
required slope of 2"/12. The addition will be approximately twice as large as the existing porch,
but the roof slope of the addition will match the slope of the existing porch roof.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B.
Staff Comments:
None.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The NCL zone was one of three zoning districts
in the Old Town neighborhoods which City Council determined that a minimum and maximum
roof pitch was an important building design element. The Code required a minimum roof pitch
to be 2/12. There were some exceptions: (1) to match any existing roof pitch and (2) if a front
porch were built and the roof of the porch acted as a second story deck. The Applicant proposed
to match the existing slope of the back porch area even though the porch area will be removed.
The proposed addition will be larger than the area the Applicant proposed to remove. The
addition will be screened by trees.
Applicant Participation
Curtis Marwitz, 4724 Harbor View Lane, addressed the Board. Marwitz represented an
architectural firm. Marwitz summarized his letter. When Marwitz was approached by the
owner, the owner wanted to fill in the existing living room. The old porch, according to
Marwitz, was enclosed and turned into a laundry room. He suggested the removal of the back
porch to the homeowner to turn it into the new living room. A window would be obstructed if
the Applicant were to comply with code. The hardship, according to Marwitz, was a design
challenge due to the tight space. He suggested a low pitched roof.
Hall wanted the current and proposed dimensions. Marwitz said currently there was 130 square
feet and he proposed 260 square feet. The addition would project out 7.5-8 feet. Hall asked if
the proposed addition would be wider than the existing. Marwitz said yes.
Board Discussion
Stockover felt the proposal was leaning toward the intent of the code. Stockover said there was
an existing flat roof and it was being replaced. Stockover stated the bulk of the house met code.
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 13
• The addition was not too visible. Barnes said the intent of the code was to maintain the existing
character of the neighborhood.
Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal 2468 based on the equal to or better than standard.
The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the
standard was to promote the aesthetics of Old Town and maintain the historic character. The
proposal promoted the standard by matching the existing roof with the proposed roof because it
will maintain the character and original design of the home. Stockover noted the bulk of the
house still had the original pitched roofs and the proposed addition will be located to the back of
the house. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, McBride, and Hall.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO. 2469—Approved with conditions.
Address: 3600 Horsetooth Court
Petitioner: Mike and Mary Beth Patrick
Zone: RL
Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(e)
is
Background
The variance would allow a new single family home to be constructed with a height of 30'-7"
instead of the maximum height allowed of 28 feet. The new home will be located 100 feet from
the east lot line, 118 feet from the south lot line, 155 feet from the north lot line, and 43 feet from
the lot line along Horsetooth Court.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship
The lot is 1.81 acres, so it is an extremely large lot for an RL zoned property. The average size
lot in the RL zone is about 7000 square feet. There are only 4 lots in the subdivision, and other
houses exceed the 28 feet height limit. The home will be constructed a considerable distance
from the lot lines, so the extra 2 1/2' of height should not be noticeable to any nearby neighbors.
Staff Comments
The intent of limiting the height of homes in this zone is to limit situations where houses may
"loom" over abutting properties, affecting privacy, shading, etc. The 28' standard was not
intended to apply to lots as large as the ones in this subdivision. Staff believes the intent of the
ordinance is complied with and there is no detriment to the public good.
0
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 14
Staff Presentation
A letter was read in support of the appeal from Van D. Pinner of 3619 Horsetooth Court. Barnes
stated the RL zoning regulations changed several years ago to include a height limit of 28 feet.
Barnes said the reason was because lots started becoming smaller in RL zoned properties. Prior
to the change in the regulations, the height limit was 40 feet. Neighbors voiced their concerns
regarding the mass of buildings that were being built. Staff proposed to City Council a height
limit of 28 feet. Barnes stated that was why Mr. Pinner's house was taller than the one being
proposed by the Patricks. The lot was not a typical RL zone lot because it was 1.81 acres in size,
larger than the average size lot.
Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The subdivision was unique because it consisted
of only four lots. The property was on the far west end of Horsetooth Road. The subdivision
had considerable amount of open space.
Stockover asked if the City owned the open space. Barnes replied that he did not know and
referred Stockover to the Applicant. Hall asked if the lot could be subdivided. Barnes stated that
in the RL zone a minimum lot size of 6000 was required, meaning the lot could be divided into
approximately ten lots. Miscio asked if there were any covenants that would prevent the lot from
being subdivided. Barnes said he did not know if the covenants restricted the subdivision of the
property.
Applicant Participation
Mary Beth Patrick, 2200 Silver Oaks Drive, addressed the Board. The contractor for the
Patricks, designed the house with a lower pitched roof and it looked terrible. The homes behind
the lot were 290 feet away. The open space, according to Patrick, was a City detention pond.
Patrick thanked Pinner for his letter. According to Patrick, the extra 2 '/2 feet would not block
anyone's view.
Hall asked if the covenants restricted the homeowner from being able to subdivide the lot.
Patrick gave the covenants to the contractor. She has not personally read them and did not intend
to sell a portion of the property. Patrick agreed with the condition of not being able to subdivide
the lot.
In support of the anneal
Mike Patrick, 2200 Silver Oaks Drive, addressed the Board and expressed his support for the
appeal.
Board Discussion
Hall was in favor of the appeal. Miscio agreed with Hall. McBride made a motion to approve
Appeal Number 2469 based on the equal to or better than standard due to the size of the lot. The
granting of variance was not detrimental to the public good. McBride placed a condition on the
approval that the lot could not be subdivided. Stockover seconded the motion.
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 15
• Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, McBride, and Hall.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO.2470—Approved with conditions.
Address: 125 North Grant Avenue
Petitioner: Justin Mauck
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.3 (E)(3), 4.6 (E)(4), 4.6 (17)(1)(g)
Back rg ound:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the alley from 5 feet to 0 feet,
reduce the required side setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet, and reduce the
minimum roof pitch from 2:12 to 3/4:12 in order to allow the existing carport to be rebuilt to the
same size and location. The existing carport was damaged in the March 2003 snowstorm and the
owner would like to restore it to a safe condition. In the event it can not be restored, the owner
would like to rebuild it. Rebuilding it would require variances.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
• If the building were rebuilt in compliance with required setbacks, access to the garage would be
cut off and a vehicle could not be parked in the carport either.
Staff Comments
None.
Staff Presentation
Barnes referred board members to information in the packet regarding the layout. There were
three detached buildings on the property including a garage, a smaller building, and a carport.
The carport was along the side lot line and the rear lot line. The code required a five-foot
setback from both of the lot lines.
Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. If the building complied with the five-foot
setback along the side, it would obstruct access to the existing garage. The existing carport was
enclosed on two sides.
Applicant Participation
Justin Mauck, 125 North Grant Avenue, addressed the Board. The Applicant wanted to restore
the carport to a safe condition. The Applicant also used the carport as a small storage space.
•
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 16
Stockover stated that he did not see where the carport was damaged. Mauck replied that a 2x6
was broken on the top and a whole section was destroyed. Stockover asked if Mauck planned on
restoring it with like materials and design. Mauck said yes and noted siding may be put on it to
match the garage. Stockover asked how long the structure has been on the property. Mauck said
he did not know. He bought the house three years ago and it was on the property when he
purchased it.
McBride asked how Mauck was able to put a car in the carport. Mauck said there was a gate in
the fence. Stockover asked staff if the carport was .rebuilt was there a design standard
requirement. Barnes said the Applicant would have to comply with building codes. Barnes said
the Applicant only needed the variance if he had to take the structure down. The Applicant
requested a variance as a preventative measure.
In support of the appeal
Robert Rupp, 618 West Mountain Avenue, expressed his support of the appeal and noted the
structure has been there for many years.
Board Discussion
Hall asked staff if the 2003 snowstorm damage was considered a hardship. Barnes said there
was a window of time in which it was considered a hardship. When a building was destroyed or
damaged by a natural calamity, even if it was nonconforming the code allowed the structure to
be rebuilt to the same size and location without the needed for a variance. A building permit had
to be obtained within six months of the natural calamity and finished within 12 months. Barnes
noted there were other items that the Board could consider such as the property being developed
with existing buildings and moving the carport and would obstruct access to the existing garage.
Stockover and Hall were in favor of the appeal. McBride asked if approval of the variance
request would allow for the structure to be fixed or replaced. Stockover said both. McBride
wanted to place a condition on the approval that the carport had to remain or be built in the same
footprint and size. The Applicant stated that the carport was defined by a concrete pad and the
footprint would remain the same. The Applicant did not intend to increase the height of the
carport.
Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2470 based on the hardship standard. The
granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The lot was unique due to it
being long and narrow. The placement of the existing garage precluded the Applicant from
moving the carport to another location on the lot without causing the Applicant to block access to
the garage. Miscio placed a condition on the approval that the carport be replaced with similar
materials, height will remain the same, and built on the existing footprint. Stockover seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, McBride, and Hall.
R
•
E
ZBA June 10, 2004
Page 17
Nays: None.
Other Business
Barnes discussed the idea of approving variances on a nominal or inconsequential basis. The
code was changed approximately six months ago to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to
approve requests using this standard. Barnes will discuss this further at a future breakfast
meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
`William Stockover, Chairperson
r9 l�au�r
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Petitioner's Letter A
#2--tes' -
Zoning Board of Appeals
c/o Zoning Department
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
May 18, 2004
Re: Variance for 1601 Remington Street
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals,
This letter is intended to formall% request the a variance to Section 3.8.19(B) of the
Land Use Code regarding the application of the "contextual setback' requirements
for the required 30 foot setback from Prospect Street for a proposed garage
building on the lot at the southwest corner of Remington Street and Prospect Road.
Code Language. Section 3.8.19 (B) of the Land Use Code states the following:
"Contextual Setbacks. Regardless of the minimum front setback requirement
imposed by the zone district standards of this Land Use Code, applicants shall be
allowed to use a "contextual" front setback. A "contextual" front setback may fall
at any point between the front setback required in the zone district and the front
setback that exists on a lot that is adjacent and oriented to the same street as the
subject lot. If the subject lot is a corner lot, the "contextual" setback may fall at any
point bets+een the zone district required front setback and the front setback that
exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. If
lots on either side of the subject lot are vacant. the setback shall be interpreted as
the mininxun required front setback that applies to the vacant lot. This provision
shall not be construed as requiring a greater front setback than that imposed by the
underlying zone district, and it shall not be construed as allowing setbacks to be
reduced to a level that results in right-of-way widths below established
mininwrtts."
Background Information. The property owner had a 400 square foot garage on the
site that t+as damaged beyond repair in the March 2003 snow storm, which has
since been removed. The old garage location didn't satisfy the required minimum
setbacks along either the north or the south property lines, as it was 2 feet from the
south property line and 26.35 feet from the north property line. Rather than to
rebuild the old garage, the property Owner would like to make the best out of the
catastrophe. and upgrade to a new garage 900 square feet in size. The lot is 50 feet
wide alone the Remington fiontage. and is 44.6 feet wide along the alley frontage.
Considering the required 30 foot setback along the northern property line, and the
required 5 toot setback along the southern property line, there is only 9.6 feet of
alle< frontage from north to south legally available for a new garage.
Requested Variance. We request permission to allow a new garage building,
which currently is required to have a 30 foot setback from the Prospect Road
right-of-\va} (technically a side yard setback) to be reduced to 10 '/ feet by
allowing the "contextual setback" to be derived from other buildings on the same
2113effumn
Foil tollim, ED 80524
970.4167431
1.888.416.7431
fait 970.4161435
Email M616oreMle.mm
blip://v wvma6ifamm
site, and to allow the reduced setback to apply to the side yard setback of 1601 Remington Street.
As Section IS.19 (B) ofthe LUC requires, the 'contextual setback" concept allows front yard
setbacks to he reduced to be consistent with other non -conforming setbacks of existing buildings
Oil adjacent or nearby properties. As written, however, side yard setbacks are not specifically
allowed have their setbacks reduced using this "contextual setback" concept, nor are other
buildings on the same property allowed to be used to establish the context from which the
"contextual setback" is derived. The purpose of a "contextual setback" is not specifically spelled
out in the Land Use Code, however common sense would seem to indicate the purpose of
allowing a setback to be reduced, when the existing context has a lesser setback than
required, is so the new buildings are in context with their surroundings as viewed from
public view. When the side lot line is a 4-lane arterial street, as it is in this case, the public view
of the property is actually viewed by the public to a greater degree than the front lot line. The
primary house on this site is 7 feet 7 inches from the Prospect Road right of way, and the
established side yard setback of other properties to the east of the site along Prospect Road are
also typically around 10 feet.
Review Criteria. This variance is requested in accordance with the review procedures set forth in
Section 2.10,2(14) of the Land Use Code as follows:
a) the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good
because other buildings, within the context of the proposed garage, are closer
to Prospect Road than the proposed garage;
• b) granting of the variance wouldn't authorize any change in use because there
is no change of use proposed;
c) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the "contextual
setback" standard equally well as would a proposal which complies with the
standard because the setback of the proposed building is similar to other
buildings within the public view along the adjacent 4-lane arterial (Prospect
Road) both on the site and in the vicinity of the proposed garage.
Thank you for your consideration of this variance request.
incerely,
r
Trey i. nes A 1. .P., A.I.T.
MJTorge sea At- 1 tects
Petitioner's Letter B
,a-4 L-i-
SILVER RUN ARCHITECTS
Curtis D. Marwitz, AIA, NCARB, Principal
4724 Harbor View Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
970.430.1960 970.226.0589 fax rkteetcdm@hotmail.com
26 May 2004
Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
As the architect for the addition to the Spivak Residence at 711 W. Mountain Ave., I believe there are two
compelling reasons to consider the design of this addition with its non -conforming low -slope roof (1/4" per 1'-0"):
First, I believe the Land Use Code requirements for a minimum 2:12 roof slope constitute a hardship to the
Spivak Residence, built in 1912 in the Craftsman Style. As the attached photographs and building elevations
show, there is a large window over the area of the proposed addition that is less than 12 feet above exterior
grade level. The location of this window, at an interior stair landing looking out over the backyard, greatly limits
the design options available for any addition on the south side of the house. Also, an existing first floor bathroom
with an 8:12 roof slope and side eaves is immediately adjacent to the enclosed porch where the addition is to be
located. The bathroom was added to the house approximately ten years ago, and included a conforming roof
slope. The roof over the bathroom coordinated well with the original porch — the substantial portion of which has
a roof slope of 114" per 1'-0". However, between these two constraints — the low stair landing window and the
adjacent bathroom roof and eaves which project over the porch roof by 12 inches — we believe the Land Use
Code requirement for a minimum 2:12 roof in the area of the original porch constitutes a hardship, in that it does
not permit another practical solution which might retain the view over the backyard from the stair window.
Second, the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 4.6 (N-C-L), F, 1.g. reads as follows [italics by us]:
(g) The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any
building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling
units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit.
We believed, as we designed the living room addition in the Arts and Crafts Style — which aesthetically allows
limited low -slope roofs with deep overhangs — that the italicized exception above should permit the design of the
addition to the Spivak Residence for the following reason:
The Land Use Code allows an exception to the 2:12 roof slope requirement when an addition matches any
existing roof slope, which is the case with the addition's roof slope matching the porch's roof slope. While it is
certainly true that the portion of the existing house with the matched roof slope is to be demolished, the Land
Use Code does not fine-tune this distinction. The addition maintains the general shape and massing of the
house in its current incarnation. The original roofed back porch to the house, which was subsequently enclosed
with windows to become a utility room — a common upgrade to older houses throughout Fort Collins — was built
in 1912 with a low -slope roof. This porch extends 8'-9" from the two-story exposure of the house. The new living
room space will extend an additional 7'-8" beyond the footprint of the existing porch. Finally, current asphalt roof
shingles on the existing porch roof are inadequate for a low -slope roof condition, so we have designed the new
addition to be covered with a high-performance 60-mil. single -ply fully -adhered EPDM roof membrane.
I hope this fully explains our rationale for designing the Spivak Residence addition as we did.
Thank you for your consideration.
l tCURTIS D. MARWrfZ, AIA, NCARB, PRINCIPAL
SILVER RUN ARCHITECTS