Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/10/2005• 0 FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — February 10, 2005 8:30 a.m. 11Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall gPhone: (H) 224-4029 p A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 10, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Steve Remington BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Marcha Hill, 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 January 13, 2005 meeting. Remington seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO. 2494 —Approved. Address: 1540 Westview Ave Petitioner: James Work Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(d) Background: is property variance would allow a single car garage to be constructed on the northwest section of the property along the rear property line. A 15' setback is required. The rear right corner encroaches into the required setback by 3 feet, thus creating a setback of 12 feet from the property line. ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is currently no garage on this site. This is a request for a single car garage. This is the only location that a standard size single car garage can be placed. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes directed the Board to the packet material and presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes clarified the 5' utility easement at the rear of the property. The property is south of Mulberry St and is near Sheldon Lake at City Park. Applicant Participation: James Work, 1540 Westview Ave, addressed the Board. Work explained that currently he has a fabric carport type structure with guy wires. Mrs. Work is partially handicapped. Mr. Work would like to build a garage that has better accessibility and is weather tight. The front driveway would be replaced with a curved driveway and new landscaping. The proposed garage would encroach into the setback requirements in an 8 sq. ft. triangle area. The neighboring property to the right is a rental. There is a large house behind that sits on 2 lots. There is a sewer line that runs through his yard from the big house behind. The sewer line misses the proposed garage location. They want to build an engineered designed garage which would look better than the temporary structure that they have. Miscio asked Work for the distance between the house and the garage and asked if the garage could be moved over to comply with the Code. Work replied that it could be done but it would be problematic. If the proposed garage were moved over, they could not have a walk way from the front to the back yard without going around the garage. Another issue would be that they would have to close off a window in the family room. The roof would also be a problem because of the location of the fireplace chimney. Work really wants a walkway between the house and the garage. Donahue asked Work about the style of the roof for the proposed roof. Work replied that he had considered hip, gabled and pitched roofs. Work had found someone to engineer drawings for the garage that would fit the house. It may be a simple pitched roof, but not a Flat roof. Board Discussion: Remington remarked that he was in favor of this appeal under the hardship standard since this is an irregular shaped lot with a canal on one side that limits the options of the location for a garage. Miscio agreed with Remington, but wanted to consider the nominal and inconsequential standard since the placement of the proposed garage has less than a 4% infringement on setback and no infringement on neighbors. Hall was in favor of appeal as it was a single car garage with minimal impact and did not create a neighborhood problem. Donahue shared a concern with the plat showing 9.7' from the corner of the residence to the property line and the driveway clearance. ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 3 Work stated that the raised portion of the deck would be removed. The driveway would be redesigned by a landscape architect. The driveway would be swooping and curved. There would be a rock wall • and small garden. The concrete would be gone and replaced with sod or stepping stones. The house sits back 10 or 15' more than the setback requirements because of the wedge shaped lot. The driveway would be a foot or so off the comer of the house. It is 11' from the edge of the house to the property line in a straight line with the front of the house, and with the diagonal another foot is gained. Barnes noted that in order to make a driveway work efficiently an 8' width from the house to the property line is needed. This measures 9.7'. No setbacks are required for driveways and there are no Code requirement as to how close you can pave to your neighbors yard.. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2494 since there was no detriment to the public good. There was a hardship situation with a unique property that was irregularly shaped and that enjoined a canal. Placement of a garage has limited options. Based on that, the appellant has proposed a good solution. Miscio seconded. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Miscio, Hall, McBride, and Remington. Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2495 — Approved. Address 1408 W Oak St Petitioner Laila Dillsi Zone NCL Section 4.6(E)(4) • Background: The variance would reduce the required west side setback from 5' to T8" in order to allow a pergola (arbor -type porch cover) to be constructed over the existing driveway, in line with the existing garage. The structure would be setback 1'8" to the structural posts with a 1' overhang. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is an existing driveway and if the posts for the structure were moved in to meet the required setback, the driveway would be impassable. The driveway leads to an existing garage. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal for a pergola. The existing garage is setback 2' 1" from the property line and is not conforming to Code, since it was probably built prior to zoning setback requirements went into effect. This is a common issue in older neighborhoods. The pergola would cover part of the driveway, with the posts very near the lot line in order to keep the driveway open. Remington asked for clarification on open structures needing permits and variances. Barnes stated • that fences 6' high or less do not need a permit. Storage sheds that are 120 sf. ft. and are 8' or less at the peak do not need a building permit if Code requirements are met. A typical fabric awning over residential windows would not need a permit unless it needs support posts in the ground. The reason ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 4 a permit was required for this pergola was that it would be attached to the house and may have wind and snow load requirements if not kept open. Normally a combustible material structure was not allowed within 3' of the property line. The applicant talked to the Building Department about the openness of the proposed pergola and it would be allowed as long as the applicant received a zoning variance. Applicant Participation: Laila Dillsi and Russ Radke, 1408 W Oak St, addressed the Board and passed out copies of their Power Point presentation. Their needs for a pergola are as follows: Summer shade to reduce interior temperature due to sun • No shade trees in front yard • New shade tree roots would infringe on neighbors • Many west -facing windows above 75' concrete driveway • No insulation in 75 year old house • Radiators, no air duct -work for air conditioning Dillsi stated that after several different plans for the proposed pergola, they are presenting the final engineered plans which show that the pergola will be a light structure. Dillsi emphasized that they live in Old Town by choice and want to keep the house and pergola with the historical architectural style, design, and character of the older neighborhood. Dillsi noted that the base of the posts is 1'8" wider and will match the design of the house with an 11" overhang. Dillsi showed pictures of other existing pergolas in Old Town and commented that there are at least 15 pergolas in their Old Town vicinity. Dillsi remarked that she had a realtor's letter regarding property values and a letter of support of this variance from the residents at 1400 W Oak St. Dillsi commented that they believe they have a hardship situation because: Code requires a 5' setback • Which would place posts in the middle of the driveway that leads to the garage • Driveway and garage are the only off-street parking in a heavily used public area Dillsi stated that the proposed pergola met the intention of the Code by providing adequate light, ventilation, and privacy. They have met with and gone over the proposed plans with Mike Gebo. Gebo told them that this structure could be permitted after approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, since the proposed pergola was an open structure that would not trap heat creating a fire hazard. Bob Hare, neighbor to the left at 1412 W Oak St, addressed the Board. Hare, Dillsi, and Radke met the previous night to review the drawings of the proposed pergola. Hare expressed his difficulty in visualizing what the pergola would look like out his windows. Hare shared some concerns of the increase of usage of the neighbor's side yard, potential blockage of morning sun, and the possibility of future neighbors putting up a fence on the property line. Hare commented that his usage of that side of his property is about 5%, where Dillsi's usage is about 95%. Hare noted that he was comfortable with his neighbor's design plans and efforts to make the proposed pergola non -obtrusive. Radke stated that the pergola would only affect the view from Hare's fourth and fifth dining room windows next to the fireplace. Radke noted that the morning sun would not be affected since their house already shadowed that side of Hare's property. Hall and Miscio asked the appellant if the pergola could be moved so it would not impact Hare's view. Dillsi replied that the placement of the pergola is to shade her windows from the sun. Attaching the ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 5 pergola to the house in a different position would actually impact the view from Hare's windows even more. • McBride had a question about the vine to be grown on the pergola. Dillsi remarked that the vines will climb the poles and spread on the top of the pergola. The vines will provide summer shade but will be hard pruned in the fall to maximize winter sun and vine growth. Board Discussion: Remington commented that these neighbors are being extremely reasonable. Remington encouraged Dillsi to put up string lines before building the pergola so everyone could be comfortable with the height of the pergola. Remington suggested a variance condition that the pergola stays an open structure. Remington, Hall, and Miscio expressed seeing this appeal as an equal to or better than standard. Miscio remarked that this structure was compatible to the neighborhood. The proposed pergola was not obstructive as it promotes openness, especially in the winter. Hare and the Board discussed prospective conditions on fencing, latticework, pergola height and openness, and drawings as submitted. Hare will be able to build a fence. Dillsi will not be able to build a fence attached to the pergola. Roger Hoover, 502 S College Ave, addressed the Board. Hoover stated that it would be very restrictive to the appellant to tie them exactly to the plans and to not allow any modifications. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2495 on the equal to or better than standard. The •general purpose of standard for which the variance requested was to promote open space, and air circulation. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal submitted would promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well than would a proposal which complies to the standard for which the variance is requested. The reason that the proposal supported the general purpose of the standard was that the structure is an open type and not confining in any way. A condition was added that the structure to be built would be limited to 4 posts with no roof or solid structure built above the posts. The pergola is to remain an open structure to promote the growth of vines. The motion was seconded by McBride. Barnes referred to the previous fence discussion. Barnes stated that if a variance was not required, they could put a fence there. Barnes remarked that the neighbor, Hare, was concerned about the area remaining open unless Hare chose to put up a fence. This pergola might increase the activity use of the area. The Board members agreed that their biggest issue was with enclosing the pergola. A condition on the fence was discussed. If the neighbor wants to put a fence up, he can do that. If new owners would decide to put up a 6' fence, it would have the same affect to this owner as enclosing the pergola. These neighbors are getting along great, but it might be different with new owners. Miscio was concerned that this property owner's rights could be taken away if a condition on a fence was added. Miscio commented that if Dillsi tore the pergola down that they would have a right to build a fence on the property line. The Board questioned putting a one way restriction on a fence which • would allow one property to have a fence and the neighboring property to not have a fence. The Board discussed impacts of selling either of these properties. ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 6 Hare commented that he wanted to protect himself from other owners that might have different ideas about the openness of the pergola. New neighbors might want to extend fencing from the pergola. Miscio stated that this structure is limited to 4 posts and wants the motion to be as stated with no restriction on a fence. The motion was previously seconded. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Miscio, Hall, McBride, Remington Nays: None 5. Appeal NO. 2496 Address 500/502 S College Ave Petitioner Roger Hoover Zone CC Section 3.5.2(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required arterial street setback along Mulberry Street from 30' to 4 inches in order to allow a 13 foot wide addition to be constructed onto the north side of the existing detached garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The purpose of the standard requiring residential buildings to be at least 30' setback from an arterial street is to ensure that residential developments provide a minimal visual and sound buffer to occupants of the homes in the development. This property is on the corner of 2 arterial streets in a heavily commercial area. Therefore, it is not the typical residential property to which the code is intended to apply. Staff Presentation: Barnes commented that a letter of support of this variance from Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Office in Advanced Planning, had been included in the packet. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property is located in the CC, Community Commercial, zoning district. That district was really not primarily intended to be a residential zone. The CC zone does not even allow detached single family homes. This is a duplex. The CC zone is generally along College Ave from Mulberry St to a little south of CSU campus, south of Laurel St. Then on Laurel from College, about a block or two, there is more CC zone and then there was the Campus West area along Elizabeth. Those are the only areas in the City that are zoned CC. The property is located in a heavy traffic area on the corner of S College Ave and Mulberry St. There is an alley behind the property. Across the street to the north is Safeway. Diagonally across the intersection are Gart Sports and the bank. Directly across College Ave is Good Times drive through restaurant. ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 7 The proposed garage location would be located right along the property line. The new garage addition location would be 4' behind the sidewalk and would not encroach into any sight distance triangle •causing any sight obstruction with the alley. Barnes stated that the Community Commercial zone, which is in Article 4 of the Land Use Code, does not contain any specific reference to setbacks for residential buildings. Therefore it is silent. Article 3 of the Land Use Code has the general development standards. Article 3.5.2(D)(1), which this appeal has requested be varied, has a requirement that residential buildings, including detached accessory buildings associated with those residential buildings, have to meet certain setbacks. In this particular incident, the Code requires a 30' setback from the property line, since Mulberry is an arterial street, which would require that residential buildings would have set back 30' from the property line along Mulberry St. The existing house is about 4' from the property line as opposed to 30' and the existing garage is just a little over 13' from the property line along Mulberry. This is already a non -conforming situation in that this is a residential use as opposed to a commercial use. The intent of that standard that requires residential buildings to be at least 30' from an arterial street was to ensure that residential developments provide a minimal visual and sound buffer to occupants of the homes in the development. This property is on the corner of two arterial streets in a heavily commercial area. Therefore, it is not the typical property that the Code is intended to apply. Hall asked Barnes what the setbacks would be if this property was used for commercial use. Barnes replied that it would be a zero setback for commercial use. Remington asked Barnes if it was a unique situation to have a residential property in the CC zone. Barnes replied that there are incidents where there are residential properties because they were isalready developed. So, it was not unique since there are a number of residential properties in the CC zone. Remington asked if it is unusual. Barnes replied that it would be unusual to find new residential development in the CC zone consisting of single family or duplex homes. New residential development in the CC zone would be more multi -family in nature. Miscio asked Barnes if a variance would be needed if this property were for commercial use. Barnes answered that there is not a commercial setback requirement along Mulberry. Commercial buildings should be less than 15' from the property line and up closer to the street. McBride asked Barnes why this property was non -conforming. Barnes stated that it was non- conforming because it was a residential use and the Code requires that a residential building be at least 30' from the property line. All the buildings of this appeal, the duplex and the detached garage, are non -conforming because they are already closer than the 30' setback requirement. Donahue noted that if the proposed addition were to conform with the 30' setback and 5' side yard setback, that the residence could be 15' wide. Barnes referred to the applicant's letter stating that according to Code, a 15' wide house, up to 5 stories, with a 20' tall 12' wide garage would be allowed. The appellant questioned the intent of the Code. Barnes stated that some zones in Article 4, which are primarily to be lower density residential zones, have special setback requirements. When the zoning district standards in Article 4 are silent, we revert to a general development standard, which in this case is the standard for residential development. Residential uses require the 30' setback. The intent of that is to ensure that residential developments provide a minimal visual and sound buffer to occupants of homes along arterial streets. • The Code is silent in Article 4, but not totally silent. When Article 4 does not specifically establish a setback, you have to go to Article 3. ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 8 Applicant Participation Roger Hoover, 502 S College Ave, addressed the Board. Hoover stated that the zoning on his property was unusual. Because of the residential usage in this CC zone, 30' setbacks from the north side and the west side; 5' setback from the alley; and an 8' setback for the garage from the property line on the south are required. For residential use 23% of this property was useable, but for business use 100% of the property would be useable. Hoover commented that the co -owners of this property have hobbies. Hoover's hobby is historic preservation and old house reconstruction. Hoover showed the Board a piece of porch railing from the front porch of the house that is currently under renovation. The garage was used for making replicas of items that he was restoring. Hoover needs more space to work on projects and would like to expand the garage. Hoover remarked that his original plans were for an addition that was not for parking a car. Hoover was convinced by Mr. Frick, Historic Landmarks Preservation Committee, that the integrity of the building and future use would be benefited by another garage bay with garage doors. The addition would have to be either north or south of the existing structure to provide access from the alley. Hoover chose the north side for the addition because of following concerns with the south side: • Co-owner of the house was an avid gardener and used the south space to grow various plants. Co-owner does not want addition over her only south facing garden space. Slate sidewalk runs from the alley to the house had been salvaged from old Fort Collins sidewalks and had a foot of road base under the sidewalk to prevent movement. Gas line under south side garden. Hoover noted that the neighborhood is commercial. The intent of the Code seemed to be to protect the residents from the arterial traffic as opposed to the other way around. This zoning situation was a hardship on any residential use of the property. Hoover corrected the request to build within 4" of the property line; there is also an additional overhang. Hoover wants to build close to the property line to allow for the overhang and surveying accuracy. Hoover had salvaged siding from a period garage that was taken down years ago that exactly matched the existing siding on the garage. The building can be constructed to appear to be an original 3 car garage. The garage addition project was scheduled for this summer. Hoover commented that the whole project has been cramped by lack of work space. It takes 2 weeks to get paint solvent to work on old wood and then dry out. It is a lengthy process restoring and replicating materials to the original design of older homes. McBride asked Hoover if the garage doors will face the alley. Hoover replied yes, and the garage will have swinging garage doors to look like the original building. Board Discussion: Miscio acknowledged that this variance could be granted based on a hardship that was not financial or self imposed. Hoover noted that the intent of the Code does not address this property since it puts him in with new residential development guidelines. There was a hardship of restrictions that make this property unusable to him, leaving only the option of selling the property to someone who wanted a business. This house was a historic entity built in 1905, with the garage being built in 1929. Hoover believed this property should be exempt from this new residential Code. ZBA February 10, 2005 Page 9 Barnes stated that the Code would be reviewed later this year and then may have clarifying language regarding properties already developed in the CC zone. Staff recognized the hardship of residential property in commercial zones. Development of residential property on arterial streets may apply to •newer developments rather than existing homes. This appeal could be hardship, equal to or better than, or nominal or inconsequential in context of the neighborhood by continuing to advance the neighborhood and not diverging in any way. In this case, the addition would buffer sound and might be considered inconsequential. Eckman noted that the addition would provide visual and or sound barriers, providing an equal to or better than condition. Compliance with Code would put the addition on the south side and the garden on the north side. Miscio and McBride agreed that this appeal met the nominal and inconsequential standard. Hall also was in favor of the variance stating the hardship standards that applied. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2496, stating that granting this variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted would be nominal and inconsequential. The addition is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood and there is a hardship because of the commercial zoning. Donahue added mitigating circumstances stating that the addition and siding should be consistent with neighborhood structures. McBride seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Miscio, Hall, and McBride. Nays: Remington. •6. Other Business Barnes mentioned a letter from the City Clerk regarding training that needed a RSVP by February 21. The next meeting will be a breakfast meeting scheduled for 8:00 a.m. Eckman remarked that change regarding the public input policy would be discussed at the next meeting. This public input policy would allow items not on the agenda to be discussed at the beginning of the ZBA meetings. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m. Wight Hall, Chairperson 0 Z6 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator