Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/12/2001Minutes approvedhi, the !Soad at the Mail 10, 2001 Meeting PORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — April 12, 2001 8:30 a.m. lCouncil Liaiurn: Karcn NNcitkunat Staff Liaison: PCICI BarnC, (2_'1-0700) 11Chairperson: WilhamStockovcl Phone: 4£'_-4895(H) A ic-ular meeting of the Zonin, Board of Appeals was held on Thursday April 12, '001. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth Andy Miscio Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ayraud Thad Pawlikowski STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes. Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano. Staff Support to the Board L ROLL CALL The meetim, was called to order by Chairperson Stockovcr and roll call eras taken. '. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the March I i ' 2001, meeting. Board Mcmber Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Board Members Shannon and Miscio abstaining. ZBA April 12, 2001 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2331 and 2332 -- Approved Address: 210 Peterson Street Petitioner: Don Smith, Contractor Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area for 210 Peterson Street from 5000 square feet to 4435 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of two 800 square feet alley houses behind 208 Peterson Street. This appeal, together with appeal 2332, would allow two alley houses to be constructed behind 208 and 214 Peterson Street, rather than one duplex that would be allowed without a variance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is enough lot area to construct a duplex without the need for a variance. The Applicant originally submitted a development request for a duplex. However, after consideration by the Landmark Preservation Commission (hereinafter LPC) with input from the neighbors, it was decided that two small detached single-family homes would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Thus, since the current proposed appeal does not increase the density beyond what would be allowed without a variance, the Applicant believes that the variance would result in development that is equal to or better than that which might otherwise occur. Staff Comments: The petitioner is seeking a variance based on the "equal to or better than" standard, instead of the hardship standard. Therefore the Board must find that the proposal will "advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested". A proposal which complies with the standard would be one that combines the two proposed lots into one larger lot and proposes one duplex instead of 2 single-family homes. If the Board is inclined to grant the variance, specific findings must be stated as to how the proposal satisfies the "equal to or better than" standard. For instance the Board may find that the variance for the lot area reductions: 1) Would not be detrimental to the public good, and 2) The variance advances and protects the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested because: ZB A April 12, 2001 Page 3 • The overall purpose of the standard is to limit the density of development on a lot and to ensure that there is adequate open space for the use and enjoyment of the occupants. Without a variance, the square footage of the land at the rear of 208 and 214 Peterson is large enough to allow 2 dwelling units in the form of a duplex, and the square footage of the duplex could be greater than the square footage of the home(s) that are being proposed. Therefore, the 2 proposed homes do not increase the density beyond what is allowed and the size of the two homes is minimal, thereby preserving approximately the same amount of open space that would be found with a duplex. • The proposed rear homes will be subordinate in size and height to the existing front homes, whereas a single duplex building would be larger than the front homes. • The Landmark Preservation Commission and City staff believe that a duplex structure would be out of character with the nearby designated properties, and would adversely impact the historical significance of the National Register District. The proposed "alley house" design of two single-family homes will preserve the historic attributes of the nearby properties and will protect the special character of this neighborhood better than a duplex would. If the Board determines that the variance requested does not "advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested", then the variance should not be approved. Barnes stated that for purposes of discussion the Board would discuss appeal numbers 2331 and 2332 together. However, the Board would have to make separate motions on each of the appeals. Barnes explained how the equal to or better than standard applied to this request. The petitoner was not seeking a hardship variance from the Board, but an equal to or better than variance in order to allow the petitioner to build two single family homes onto the rear of the two lots. Barnes stated when an Applicant is seeking relief on an equal to or better than standard the Board must find that the proposal will advance or protect the public interest and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested. The request has to be proven equally well or better than a proposal which complies with the standard. In this instance, the developer had orginally submitted a development plan for a duplex behind 208 and 214 Peterson Street. There are two single family homes on the front of the two side by side lots. The lots are owned by the same person. The owner combined the properties to have 19,000, square footage of lot area. The owner is replatting the property into four lots. Each of the homes on the front of the property would consist of 5000 square feet. Five thousand square feet is the minimum lot area required for the NCM zoning district. The original proposal was to replat the property into three lots (the two 5000 square feet lots in the front and a 9000 square feet lot in back). The Applicant submitted for review a duplex on the 9000 square feet portion in back. No variance was required for the proposed duplex. Due to the property being in the Laurel School National Historic District the LPC was involved in the development review. The Board packet contained a letter from Karen McWillaims regarding the Historic Preservation Department's view on this matter as well as the LPC's opinion. The LPC became involved in the review process and meetings were ZB A April 12, 2001 Page 4 held to dicuss the design of the duplex. The neighbors were also involved in the review process. The neighbors and the LPC had problems with the large duplex that was proposed. The Applicant came back and submitted the plan that the Board had showing the two 800 square feet homes. Each of the homes proposed are to be on its own lot. Each of the lots will have less than 5000 square feet of lot area, therefore a variance has been requested. The Applicant used the equal to or better than standard hoping to show the proposed two single family homes on lots less than 5000 is better than a duplex on the 9000 square feet lot. Gary Lopez presented slides revelant to this appeal. The houses will have alley access. Examples of single family dwellings were shown as typical residences in the neighborhood. Applicant Participation: Donald Smith, 901 Edwards Street, addressed the Board. He has been on the project for approximtely fifteen to eighteen months. When the property was bought, the original concept was to tear down the two houses up front and build four houses with a common greenbelt in the middle of them. It was discovered the property was in a historic district and that the requirements were to maintain the two front houses. Through a period of four or five months the Applicant came up with the plan to keep the two front houses. The dwelling at 208 Peterson Street was about 900 square feet, and the dwelling at 214 Peterson Street was a little over 500 square feet. It was decided additions would be put on both of the front houses. The concept of splitting the lots and creating a 9000 square foot lot was developed and the plan was to put a duplex on the back lot. The Applicant met with the City Historic Preservation Department, the LPC, and the neighbors. Each entity wanted to maintain the character of the neighborhood. They did not want the duplex overpowering the front two houses and there was concern regarding parking. When the duplex plan was submitted there were two two -car garages --one for each side of the duplex. This idea dealt with the parking for the duplex, but not for the front two houses. The current proposal has two two -car garages and four additional parking spaces. In this process, the Applicant ended up with a facility that not only has parking and garage parking for the back spaces but also one garage space and one outside space for the front two houses. The Applicant believed the current proposal offered a better solution to each interested entity. In the process of developing the current proposal, the Applicant has saved some vegetation. The Applicant also attended an alley home presentation given by the City Current Planning Department to aid in ideas. Remington had questions regarding the parking situation on the property. The Applicant responded that there would be a legal separation between the garages and the other parking spaces. Board member N iscio asked if the only access from the property to the garages would be the alley. The Applicant stated that plans have been submitted to the City Engineering Department to have access off of the alley. N iscio asked if the alley was currently paved and if not whose responsibility it was to pave the alley. The Applicant stated that presently it is not, but would be one of the items that will come through the engineering department. Barnes clarified that it was ZBA April 12, 2001 Page 5 not unusal whenever a new principal building was built in the older neighborhoods, on a lot that butts an alley, that the alley serves as the primary access. In circumstances such as this the engineering department would require a portion of the alley to be paved. The Applicant has not heard back from the engineering department as to whether or not he will be required to pave the alley. Board member Breth asked the Applicant what the objection was to the duplex. The Applicant responded that size was the biggest concern. In the original plan, one side of the duplex was 1450 square feet, the other side was 1540 square feet, and both had unfinished basements. In the current plan, each home has 800 square feet finished (up) and 800 square feet unfinished (basement) so nearly the same square footage was achieved in a smaller building footprint. Miscio asked what the use of the properties were on Oak Street. The Applicant responded that it was mainly single family dwellings but the neighborhood had mixed uses. Miscio also questioned the Applicant as to whether or not the properties would be used as rentals. Rental property was not the Applicant's. intention for this project. The Applicant already has separate individuals interested in purchasing the property. Each lot would carry its own deed. The front properties already have been sold. Board member Stockover was unclear on the ownership of the garages. He asked the Applicant if the front two houses would own a garage space even though it was on a separate lot. The Applicant explained it was a legal issue needing to be worked out. It was once proposed to have four separate single car garages, but the historic preservation department felt the property would then be cluttered with too many buildings. The gargage space will be assigned with an agreement. The Applicant has discussed this issue with the front two property owners and they found it to be satisfactory. In support of Appeal: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, addressed the Board. McWilliams stated that both City staff and the LPC members were very much in favor of the appeal. It was expressed that the current proposal goes beyond the alternative of the duplex towards maintaining the historic character of a nationally registered district, to maintaining the neighborhood characteristics of small single family dwellings, and maintaining as much open space, land, trees, and vegetation. Remington asked if the duplex were going to be put in, would it require approval from the Historic Preservation. McWilliams told him no. She stated the only way City staff would be able to review the duplex would be for its architectural compability within the historic district and comparing the project with the Land Use Code. McWilliams was concerened with size, scale, character, and neighborhood preservation. McWilliams felt the alley homes would be a prototype for future infill within the neighborhood. ZB A April 12, 2001 Page 6 Board Discussion: Board member Shannon thought the project was well thought out and commended the Applicant for cooperative efforts. Miscio felt that since the intention was homeownership it would improve the neighborhood. He was concerned with the paving of the alley, but stated that downtown needed more denisty to support the commercial use. He believed it would be a plus for the neighborhood. Breth thought that it met the equal to or better than standard because of the two individual buildings instead of one large duplex. He also favors ownership over rental property. Stockover felt the parking situation was handled very well, and that it was better than the standard. Paul Eckman stated that Barnes presented findings in the staff report that the Board could use as part of their motion. Barnes mentioned that it was necessary for the Board to state specific findings on how it is equal to or better than. Shannon moved to approve appeal number 2331 because it was equal to or better than what would have been allowed in that it maintains quality and nature of the neighborhood, provides superior parking, and allows more green space. Shannon also referenced the staff report. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2332 -- Approved Address: 212 Peterson Street Petitioner: Don Smith, contractor Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area for 212 Peterson Street from 5000 square feet to 4500 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of an 800 square feet alley houses behind 214 Peterson Street. This appeal, together with appeal 2331, would allow 2 alley houses to be constructed behind 208 and 214 Peterson Street, rather than the one duplex that would be allowed without a variance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is enough lot area to construct a duplex without the need for a variance. The Applicant originally submitted a development request for a duplex. However, after consideration by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) with input from the neighbors, it was decided that two small detached single-family homes would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Thus, since the current proposed does not increase the density beyond what would be allowed ZBA April 12, 2001 Page 7 without a variance, the Applicant believes that the variance would result in development that is equal to or better than that which might otherwise occur. Shannon moved to approve appeal number 2332 for the same reasons stated as appeal number 2331. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2333 -- Approved Address: 1124 Woodford Avenue Petitioner: Kendra Melson and Brenda Van Dyke, owners Zone: NCL Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building on the lot, instead of within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a massage therapy business to be conducted in the existing 10' x 20' former detached garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home is a small, two -bedroom home, with no extra space in the house which can be occupied by the business. There is no attached garage on this lot. If the garage were attached, a variance would not be required. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The home is a corner lot served by both Shields and Woodford. It is a very small lot. Shannon asked since the lot is so tight and access is only from Shields where would the parking be for the clientele. Barnes responded that the Applicant does have a driveway and needed to provide offstreet parking for the needs of the business. Applicant Participation: Kendra Melson, 1124 Woodford Avenue, addressed the Board. She explained to the Board that she only sees one client per, hour, and there is street parking right in front of the home. Sometimes she will park her vehicle in front of the home and allow the client to use the driveway space. Stockover asked if the Applicant was currently running the business outside of her home? She responded that she is not. Miscio asked if that section of Shields was busy with traffic. Applicant Melson responded that Shields was pretty busy, but she has not had any problems ZB A April 12, 2001 Page 8 getting in and out of the driveway. Miscio asked if she was using the structure as a garage right now, or has it been remodeled. The Applicant has already remodeled the detached garage. Shannon asked if there were times of day that the Applicant could not park on the street. The Applicant stated that during the day it was easier to park than after five o'clock within that area. Her hours would be eight o'clock to five o'clock. Shannon brought up the issue of scheduling the clients with overlapping times. The Applicant puts an extra half hour between each session. Miscio asked Barnes if the zoning laws precluded this situation. Barnes responded that home occupations are allowed in every zone in Fort Collins and the same regulations apply regardless of the zone. One of the requirements is that you have to conduct the business entirely within the dwelling, not within a detached building. It is not uncommon in the older parts of town to hear a variance request for people who want to use existing detached buildings for home occupation acitivities. They do not have attached garages like new neighborhoods have. If the garage were attached, the Applicant would not be asking for a variance. Miscio asked the Applicant if she had considered attaching the garage to the house. The Applicant responded that she did not, due to aesthetic reasons. Stockover asked if there was room to put two cars in the driveway. The Applicant was unsure; she had never tested the concept. Stockover was concerned due to two clients being there at the same time. The Applicant reiterated that she would have a half hour between sessions and did not foresee this as a problem. Remington asked that if the Board were to approve the variance, and the house was sold, would the prospective buyer need to come back for a variance. Barnes responded that the Board should put a condition on the request that it be for this type of business. Remington is in support of the request with the above condition. Board Discussion: Miscio was concerened with the safety of backing out into Shields. He was worried about the ingress and egress of the traffic for the business. Barnes understood the concern, but he thought it had nothing to do with the variance request. Stockover asked Barnes if the Applicant would be limited to the number of employees. Barnes stated that the Applicant would not be allowed to have more than one employee who does not live there. She is not requesting any outside employees. If there was another employee who would have to drive there then you would have another parking issue. Stockover wanted to limit it to her business without any employees due to the parking situation. Stockover asked the Applicant to address the employee issue. The Applicant stated that there is not room for two employees to operate at the same time. Remington asked if there was anything the Applicant could do to encourage people to park on Woodford instead of using the driveway. The Applicant stated that she could. She often tells her clients to park on Woodford Avenue. Stockover leaned toward supporting the appeal. He thought the size of the building would limit a lot of things. Miscio agreed with Stockover. Stockover thought the request should be limited to this business only. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2333 with the ZB A April 12, 2001 Page 9 condition that the home occupation be limited to a massage therapy business based on the hardship of the existing garage structure. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2334 -- Approved Address: 700 Colorado Street Petitioner: Mike Jones, owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Laurel Street from fifteen feet to six inches in order to allow a two -car attached garage to be constructed on the east side of the existing house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see the petitioner's letter. In addition, the "contextual setback" exception allowed in Section 3.8.19(B) could be applied to this lot if it were not a corner lot. This exception would allow the proposed setback variance to be a reduction from 4.8 feet to six inches instead of from fifteen feet to six inches. Additionally, the addition will only extend two feet beyond the 1975 porch addition. Staff Continents: Barnes did receive a petition in support of the appeal. The petition was signed by 25 different properties on Colorado and Laurel. Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The curb cut has already been created for the driveway. Breth questioned the lot size. Barnes stated that it is not uncommon in the older neighborhoods where people had long corner lots at some point to split the rear portions off and build another house. From 1929 until 1965 one only needed 3000 square feet of lot area in these zones to have a legal size lot. Applicant Participation: Mike Jones, 700 Colorado Street, addressed the Board. Applicant Jones handed out additional exhibits to the Board members. He went approximately a block on each side of Laurel Street to prepare the exhibits the Board has showing the setbacks. The Applicant looked at approximately thirteen lots and of those thirteen his property is the only one that does not have off street parking currently. The Applicant and his wife have been parking on the street for the twenty-eight years ZB A April 12, 2001 Page 10 that they have lived in the house. All of his cars have been vandalized. Due to the existing site constraints the best location for off street parking is attached to the house and projecting about two feet past the existing structure. All but three of the buildings that the Applicant looked at do encroach past the fifteen foot setback. The Applicant researched Laurel Street. Laurel Street is classified as a collector street by City standards. He has found that his neighbors are in favor of his request. Board Discussion: Miscio thought it was great that the Applicant is improving his property and the neighborhood, and was in favor. Stockover agreed. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2334 due to the property being on a small comer lot and the Applicant not being able to accomplish his intent without a variance. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2335 -- Approved Address: 110 North Sherwood Street Petitioner: Linda Ripley, owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from fifteen feet to six feet in order to allow a 6' x 12' addition onto the north end of the existing one-story portion of the home. The east wall of the proposed addition will line up with the existing east wall of the home, which is already at a six foot setback from the rear property line. Therefore, the addition will will not be any closer to the rear lot line than the existing house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is very small, 62.5' x 57'. The proposed addition will comply with the side setback, and the lot area to floor area ratio will also be complied with. This is the only feasible location to construct the addition, and it will line up with the existing rear wall. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. ZBA April 12, 2001 Page 11 Applicant Participation: Linda Ripley, 110 North Sherwood Street, addressed the Board. She has lived in this house for eighteen years. She has two daughters. Currently the house contains two bedrooms and one bathroom which is becoming cumbersome. She would like to add a main floor bathroom. She has room to add the bathroom without a variance. The dilema is the back portion of the house used to be a garage and is now used as storage. With the bathroom addition, the storage area would become nonexistent. She would like to allow for the storage and has requested minimal amounts for the storage. She believed her hardship was a very small lot. Her alternative would be to use a storage shed. If she had to use a storage shed, it was her opinion that the integrity of the house would be lost. She would like the addition to serve all of her purposes by keeping the storage inside of the house. Shannon asked the Applicant why she could not put the addition on the other side. The Applicant responded that the other side is not any bigger. If she did decide to build onto the other side, she would lose her outside patio space, and she would still need a variance request. Board Discussion: Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2335 for the hardship of a shallow lot. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 8. Other Business There was a discussion held regarding home occupations in a detached garage. Barnes explained the limitations on the home occupation license. Eckman discussed Division 2.10 in the Land Use Code. He asked the Board to consider changing the title from "Hardship Variances" to "Variance". He needed the Board to vote in approval. The Board agreed. Shannon made a motion to support the change as specified. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. Eckman also discussed how to make motions and what findings the Board should have. Eckman suggested the Board take a look at Article 2, Step 8, The Standards. First, the Board needs to make a finding that is not detrimental to the public good and it does not authorize any change in use other than to the use that is allowed subject to building permit review. Second how it is equal to or better than because of some specific description included in the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. a,J-- William Stocko er, Chairperson ZBA April 12, 2001 Page 12 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator