Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/18/2004• Minutes approved by the Board at the December 9, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — November 18, 2004 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11Chairperson: William Stockover JjPhone: (H) 223-7138 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday November 18, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Steve Remington • William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. 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 and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 14, 2004, meeting. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed. • ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2487—Denied. Address: 1436 West Oak Street Petitioner: P.W. Smith Construction Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 0' and along the east lot line from 5' to 3' in order to allow a new 528 square foot detached garage to be constructed in the rear portion of the lot (the lot is 25' wide at the location where the garage is proposed). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Since the lot width at the proposed location is only 25' wide, there is no way that a 2-car garage can be constructed in compliance with the required setbacks. Staff Comments: Since there is already one garage on the lot, requesting a variance to allow a new 2-car garage would seem to be creating a self-imposed hardship. The new garage could be an over -sized one - car wide garage and be constructed without a variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes commented that the lot was irregular in shape. The lot was predominantly rectangular in shape, but the lot also had a 25-foot wide finger. An alley also existed behind the property. Barnes showed where the proposed garage would be located on the lot. Barnes noted that the property had an existing detached garage. Barnes said that a building permit was issued for the renovation and addition to the existing house. Access to the garage, will be from the alley not the street. Barnes displayed the adjacent property that fronted on Roosevelt, and the 25-foot finger of lot area. Applicant Participation: Patrick Smith of P.W. Smith Construction, and representative for the homeowners, addressed the Board. Smith noted that the existing detached garage was not big enough for his clients because their vehicles do not fit in the existing garage. Smith's clients wanted to convert the existing garage into a shop. Remington asked Smith if the existing garage would remain on the property. Smith said yes. Miscio wondered if the new garage would be compatible with the house. Smith noted that the ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 3 • proposed garage would match the house with siding, similar detail, and the same paint. Miscio asked Smith if the proposed garage would include an attic. Smith replied that the garage walls would be 9-feet in height with standard trusses. The roof would have a 6/12 pitch. Miscio inquired about the current purpose of the 25-foot finger. Miscio felt that the finger was a vacant piece of ground that accumulated trash. Smith agreed with Miscio and noted that the previous owners used it for a garden. Miscio wanted to know if the current owners sold the back portion of the property. Smith responded that the lot was previously subdivided. Remington wanted Smith to clarify his hardship statement. Smith replied that the existing garage was not big enough for his client's vehicles, and commented that his clients wanted shelter for their vehicles. Remington asked why Smith did not make the existing garage bigger. Smith stated that if the existing garage were made bigger access would be difficult. Remington asked how many feet were between the lot line and the back of the garage. Dickson noted that it was approximately 15 feet. Miscio asked Smith what was to the east and west of the existing garage. Stockover noted that a house was to the west. Smith commented that there were not any buildings or structures to the east of the existing garage. Stockover asked Smith if he spoke to his client's neighbors about the proposal. Smith said yes and mentioned that the neighbors to the east had no concerns, although the neighbor to the west was concerned about her fence being damaged during construction. Board Discussion: • Donahue asked Barnes if there were any zoning requirements limiting the number of out buildings. Barnes replied that there was nothing in the code limiting the number of detached accessory buildings, although there was a lot area to floor area ratio, which in this zone was three to one. Barnes mentioned that the Applicant was allowed 2875 square feet of floor area, and the Applicant currently had 2700 square feet. Donahue inquired if the footings and roof overhang had to be configured into the zero foot setback. According to Barnes, the roof would not be allowed to overhang the property line, and the Applicant would have to one -hour fire rate the construction. Remington inquired about the rear setback requirement for the existing garage. Barnes referred board members to the site plan that was included in their packets. Barnes said the lot line that was behind the garage was not the rear lot line, but a side lot line that required a five-foot setback. Stockover noted that he struggled with the hardship because he felt the hardship was self imposed. The Board discussed the various possibilities under the hardship standard. Smith said that his clients were not in favor of a tandem garage. Remington wanted to know why access to the existing garage was difficult. Smith replied that it was narrow next to the house, and getting into the right stall was difficult because the existing garage was shallow. Remington wondered why the existing garage could not be rebuilt into a functional garage. Smith reiterated his comment that access into the garage from the west side of the house was difficult. Remington • felt the garage could be move back. Miscio stated he was bothered by the extra piece of ground ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 4 that was being wasted. Miscio felt the proposed garage made sense due to alley access and utilizing a piece of ground. Miscio struggled with the hardship. McBride commented that he did not have a problem with the location of the garage, but he had issues with zero foot setback. McBride suggested having a three-foot setback on each side, and having a 19-foot wide garage with a 16-foot door. Miscio asked the Applicant if he agreed with McBride's suggestion. Smith said yes. Stockover asked why Smith decided to use a zero foot setback on one side and not the other. Miscio asked how big of a garage would be allowed if the Applicant complied with the code. Donahue remarked 15-feet wide with five feet on each side. Barnes noted that Donahue statement was correct. Smith claimed that two cars would not fit into a 15-foot wide garage. The Board discussed Smith's alternatives to his request. Hall commented that he would find it difficult to approve the Applicant's variance request because there were other options. Donahue concurred with Hall and said the intention of the setback requirements were to provide light, air, and ventilation between properties. Donahue was concerned with the impact on the property to the west. Stockover was in favor of storing items inside of a garage. The request for a zero lot line bothered Miscio and he was in favor of McBride's suggestion. The Board discussed McBride's suggestion of a 19-foot wide garage. Miscio informed the Board why he was in favor of the appeal. Remington stated to the Board, that he did not support the appeal because he failed to see a hardship. Stockover commented that with a tandem garage the wall space would be doubled on each side. Barnes said that it was unknown if the Applicant would build a tandem garage. According to Barnes, if the Applicant wanted to park two cars, they would have two garages available to accommodate vehicles and other storage items. Barnes suggested that the door could be renovated in order to accomplish the desire for a two -car garage. Barnes reviewed the options to the Board. McBride thought a 19-foot garage was better than a 48-foot long tandem garage. Stockover wanted Eckman to clarify the hardship standard for an unusual shaped lot. Eckman replied exceptional narrowness, and noted that the lot in question was not narrow because the street frontage had normal width. Barnes commented that the lot was an unusual shape, but the extra 25 feet was a bonus. Smith stated that when the lot was originally designed it went as far back as the alley, and someone subdivided the upper left corner. Barnes asked when the current owners purchased the property. Smith replied maybe one year ago or less. Dickson mentioned that she could not justify the proposal as a hardship. Miscio discussed functional obsolescence. Stockover remarked that economics could not be considered under the hardship standard. Miscio wanted to use the equal to or better than standard to approve the variance. Dickson disagreed with Miscio. McBride made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2487 for a three-foot setback on both sides under the equal to or better than standard. McBride stated there was no detriment to the public good. McBride noted that a 19x24 foot garage, with a three-foot setback on each side, was better than a tandem garage. McBride felt a tandem garage was visually intrusive and undesirable. ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 5 • The intent of the code was met by providing adequate light, ventilation, and air between properties. Miscio seconded the motion. The Board discussed McBride's motion. Miscio informed Smith that the Board changed his variance request, and asked staff if the Board was allowed to alter a variance request. Bames said yes as long as the request was less than what was previously asked for by the Applicant. Smith was in favor of the approval. Hall did not support the request because he felt it was a self imposed hardship. Stockover commented that he supported the appeal because the adjacent neighbors did not have any issues with the request. Remington struggled with the request because if the Board granted the variance he stated there was nothing to stop the homeowner from building a fourth building on the property. The Board discussed the Applicant's options. According to Smith, the existing garage was tattered and the garage could not accommodate a new door. The motion failed. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, and Stockover. Nays: Hall, Remington, Dickson, Donahue. Stockover suggested that the request be re -heard next month. The Board discussed the failure of the motion to carry. Smith asked if he would be allowed to rebuild the existing garage without a variance. Bames replied no because all new construction required compliance with the code or a variance. Bares stated that the Applicant's options were to build a building to the rear that • complied with the five-foot, side -yard setback, and of a size that complied with the lot area to floor area ratio. Eckman commented that the by-laws allowed for reconsideration and the motion to reconsider could only be made by a member who voted no. Staff and the Applicant discussed what would require a variance request. The Board and the Applicant discussed if the request should be tabled or if the Applicant should come back with a different variance request. The Applicant decided to come back next month with a different variance request. Remington suggested that the Applicant bring with him accurate numbers on the lot area to floor area ratio. 4. APPEAL NO. 2487—Approved with conditions. Address: 2613 Shavano Court Petitioner: Doug Nagle Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(c), 4.3(D)(2)(d) Background The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from 10 feet to 4 feet and the side -yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet 2 inches in order to allow the construction of a 129 square foot storage shed in the back corner of the lot. 0 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 6 If the height of the shed was lowered and the building made slightly smaller, than a variance would not be required. The shed is 15" too tall at the very peak, so most of the building does not exceed the 8' height requirement. The shed is about 100' from any other house, so the location should not be detrimental to the neighbors. The lot slopes down to the corner of the lot where the shed is located, so the actual height of the shed appears to be lower, and is actually not even visible from the street. Staff Comments None. Staff Presentation A letter was read from Wei-Ke Chang, 3137 Red Mountain Drive, and Chang did not support the appeal. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was located at the end of a cul-de-sac. Barnes showed where Chang lived in relation to the Applicant. The shed, according to Barnes, has already been constructed. The PUD allowed for a setback of ten feet, and Bames explained that was why the request was to reduce the setback from ten feet to four feet, instead of 15 feet to four feet. Barnes commented that there was an easement and a portion of the shed rested on the easement. If the variance request was approved, the Applicant would have to vacate a portion of the utility easement. Applicant Participation Doug Nagle, 2613 Shavano Court, addressed the Board. Nagle claimed that he received the specifications for a shed, but he mistakenly used the specifications for the inside dimensions instead of the outside. He also made an error regarding the height of the roof on the shed. Nagle stated that his lot was in the shape of a pie, and the back went into a comer. Nagle commented that there was 16 feet from the back of the shed to the comer of the lot, which he felt was a significant difference. According to Nagle, in order to comply with the code the shed would have to be in the middle of the yard. Nagle said the individual opposed to the appeal did not have an adjoining lot with him. The shed matched Nagle's house. Nagle felt that the shed would be difficult to move because the foundation of the shed was a slab. Stockover asked about the vacation of the easement. Bames clarified that the Applicant would not have to vacate the entire easement. The Applicant could request a vacation of a portion of the easement. The Applicant would need to talk to the Engineering Department in order to process the vacation of the easement. Nagle felt it was more grief to fix the shed than to vacate the easement. Barnes explained what could be built in an easement. Remington asked Nagle if he would be able to take of 15 inches off the roof. Nagle responded that he would have to cut the entire top off the shed, lower the window, and door. Dickson asked staff if the shed was 120 square feet and 8 feet in height if the shed could be on the property line. Barnes replied that if a shed was no taller than 8 feet, and no larger than 120 square feet the shed could be within three feet of the lot line without a permit. If the shed was made out of wood or ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 7 • combustible material, and closer than three feet to the property line, then a building permit was required because the walls would need to be fire -rated. Nagle reiterated that the variance was for the height and size of the shed, not the location. Hall asked Nagle to clarify his hardship statement. Nagle felt the request fell under the hardship standard because of the comer and the shape of the lot. Miscio was concerned with the shed being in an easement. Miscio disagreed with the letter from the opposing neighbor. Nagle noted that the easement consisted of a cable and telephone line. Miscio felt the hardship was self-imposed. Dickson disagreed with the hardship, and felt the equal to or better than standard should be used in this case. Stockover was concerned with the peak of the roof on the shed because it was above the fence line. Nagle stated that the peak of the roof would be visible even if he shortened the shed or moved it. Donahue drew a picture of a potential location of the shed by placing it in a more easterly direction. Stockover was in favor of cutting the roof line down because he felt it was the Applicant's best option. According to Stockover, a pie shaped lot was not unique or considered a hardship. The Board and the Applicant discussed the height of the shed. Barnes clarified that the variance was for the position of the shed because of the height. Barnes stated that the maximum height allowed by code was 28 feet. Board Discussion • Miscio struggled with the variance because he felt it lacked justification. Remington was reluctant to maintain the current height of the shed due to neighborhood complaints. Donahue was concerned with shed being in an easement. Miscio felt the appropriate agency should make the decision regarding the easement. Hall made a motion to deny Appeal Number 2488 because it was detrimental to the public good, and the Applicant did not prove that there was a hardship. Barnes commented that the Board could approve the variance on the condition that the height be in compliance with the code. Barnes noted that if the Board denied the variance, the Applicant would need to request another variance for the size of the shed. Stockover stated that if the roof was lowered the Applicant would meet the intent of the code. Hall agreed and withdrew his motion. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2488 with the condition that the height of the shed be limited to eight feet. The motion was based on the equal to or better than standard because it was not detrimental to the public good, and the intent of the setback requirement was to provide light, air, and ventilation between properties. The shed as proposed met the intent of the code. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hall, McBride, Miscio, Stockover, Remington, Dickson, and Donahue. • Nays: None. ZBA November 18, 2004 Page 8 4. Other Business There was no other business. Meeting ad.our ed at 10:03 a.m. A. i a lti.Aa, William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator