Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/08/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 8, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Keating, Thad Pawlikowski, David Ayraud, William Stockover, Martin Breth, Steve Remington, Diane Shannon BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the June 10, 1999 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2258: -- Approved Address: 829 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Mike Adams of Summit Construction, Contractor Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along Washington Street from 15' to 12'9" for a 2-story addition to the rear of the home; and from 15' to 5' along Washington for a new, detached 3-car garage at the rear of the property. ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing home is already only 9'9" from the Washington Street property line. The addition will have a greater setback than currently exists. The lot is very narrow — only 40' wide. There is an existing garage at the rear of the property that is in disrepair. The owner proposes to demolish it and construct a larger one in its place. Staff Comments: The Board has considered numerous setback requests in the older part of town that are similar to this. Usually, such requests are granted when the existing home is already nonconforming. However, a request to reduce setbacks for a 3-car garage in the older part of town is more unusual. The Board may want to consider whether or not a smaller garage would be more appropriate. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. Slides were viewed of the property and the existing garage from the back end of the lot, where the Applicant was proposing to demolish the existing garage and replace it with a new 3-car garage. Nuckols also showed the rear of the property where a new addition would be at a 12'9" from the side property. The setback after the new garage construction would be 5' both at the side and rear of the property lines. Breth questioned Staff regarding the accompanying site plans for this appeal and that the plans noted a porch, which shows a setback of 7'9" off the property line which was not mentioned in the appeal. Barnes clarified that there is a section in the Code dealing with setback regulations which sets forth the type of things that can encroach into the required setbacks. One of the allowed encroachments is an open porch cover as long as it doesn't project more than 2' from an existing building. The Applicant's porch is at 9'9" and the cover is 7'9", therefore it is allowed. Applicant Particination: Jeffrey Lindquist, homeowner of 829 West Mountain, addressed the Board. He stated that after replacing the deteriorating back porch, the setback then will be 1' inside the 9'9" setback resulting from his bay window and this will be the closest area to the property line. Referring to the garage, he stated that they only use it for storage as it has a dirt floor, no foundation and is in bad condition. The proposed garage will actually be further from the property line than the existing one. Due to the lot width of only 40', he would be unable to put in a garage that would be any further from the side setback, he could not get a garage the size he wants to fit within the smaller parameters. Lindquist also noted that the tree which actually touches the existing garage would be preserved and is one of the reasons for planning the proposed garage to be tamed to face the alley. Shannon asked the Applicant to verify that this would be a three -car garage accessed from the alley. Linquist verified that was correct. She was concerned that there would be enough turning radius to negotiate into the garage. Lindquist answered that he would come back far • • ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 3 enough from the alley to ensure enough room. Shannon questioned Linquist on why he chose to build a 3-car garage. Lindquist responded that with his two cars, he wanted to have room to store a lawn mower, canoes etc. and a standard 2-car garage would not allow him the room he wanted. Keating asked Linquist if a 2-car garage would conform with the setback requirements. Linquist responded that with the 40' lot width, after taking the setback requirements of 15' from one side and 5' from the other, he could not find a 2-car garage plan to fit the resulting 20' remaining, and if it were to be angled, the tree would have to be taken out. The proposed garage would match his existing home architecture. Linquist mentioned that the proposed garage would actually end up further away from his property line than the existing garage. After having the property surveyed, he found out that the existing garage is actually 8" over the south side property line and only 2.5' from the west property line. Linquist wanted to mention that he has spent considerable time planning the addition and new garage with contractors and also the Historic Preservation Committee and all the construction would match the existing home architecture. Public Participation: None. Keating made a motion to approve appeal #2258 based on the hardship stated. Shannon seconded the motion. Board Discussion: Stockover asked the Applicant about the size of the garage doors. Linquist replied that it would have one standard 2-car garage and one single car garage door and would be constructed of steel. Stockover questioned if there were any Code restrictions in the old town area regarding design and material usage. Barnes responded that there were none that deal with garage door materials. Applicant, Mike Adams, addressed the Board. Adams is the contractor for Linquist. He commented that he has worked with the Historic Preservation Committee on this project and it has met with their approval. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal #2258 was approved. 4. APPEAL 2259: --Tabled Address: 4606 South Mason Street Petitioner: Fred Frantz, Contractor ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 4 Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(I) Board Discussion: As the Applicant was not present at this time, the Board decided to rearrange the agenda and move this appeal to the end of this hearing session. 5. APPEAL 2260: -- Approved Address: 700 Wagonwheel Drive Petitioner: Mike Hardin, Owner Zone: RL Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in an existing detached garage/shop building located to the rear of the existing home, instead of conducting the home occupation entirely within the home as required. The business is a sign making business. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Detached garage is existing and previously served as a woodshop for personal use by the previous owner. The property is bordered on one side by Drake Raod and a drainage ditch on another. Garage location is not in close proximity to neighbors. If activity were to take place in attached garage, there would be greater noise disturbance to the neighbors and cars would need to be parked outside. Staff Comments: If the Board considers granting this variance, an appropriate condition to consider would be to limit the home occupation to this particular business. Barnes gave an explanation to the Board on the particular section of the Ordinance that pertains to home occupation in detached buildings. One of the stipulations regarding home occupation is that the business has to be conducted entirely within the dwelling. Usually where the Board sees variance requests similar to the Applicants, it is in the older parts of town where there are not attached garages. Owners in newer parts of town that have attached garages can convert those garages to house the home occupation business and there is no need for a variance. This case is somewhat different in that the Applicant resides in a newer part of town where most homeowners have attached garages. In the Applicant's case, it is an existing detached garage that is being proposed for use for the home occupation. Nuckols presented slides of the Applicants property noting that it is situated at the end of a cul-de-sac. Slides were shown of neighboring properties to the left and right, noting that the neighbor to the right is approximately 25' from the Applicant's home. The Board viewed E ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 5 the existing shop/garage and where a gate in a fence along Drake Road was located into the Applicant's back yard. Shannon asked Nuckols what the access was to the back of the detached garage and where clients would enter or park. Nuckols responded that there is another access to the back yard on the right side of the property and perhaps the Applicant could clarify how clients would access the property. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Mike Hardin, addressed the Board. In regards to client access to his property, Harden stated that no clients or customers actually come onto his property at all. Hardin said that his business is making hand carved signs and business transactions that take place do not involve customers physically coming to his property. Hardin mentioned that if business was conducted in the attached garage, the level of noise from his woodworking tools would be greater, the dust generated from the work would be more visible and he would also have to park his two vehicles outside all the time. Hardin remarked that the reason he and his wife bought this home was because he had planned on running his business from the insulated, detached garage already existing at the rear of the property. Hardin noted that the detached garage is very near Drake Road and that any noise generated from it is not noticeable due to the traffic noise off of Drake Road. Shannon questioned Hardin where he was currently conducting his business. Hardin responded that he has been working out of the detached garage for the past four years. His work had always been generated in Denver and he was unaware that there were any restrictions that prohibited him from working from the detached garage until he took on work in the Fort Collins area. Shannon asked Hardin if he had ever had any complaints because of the noise in that four year span. Hardin responded that he had not. Barnes made the comment that one of the requirements of the Home Occupation Ordinance is that the activity conducted cannot create an offensive noise that is noticeable beyond the property line. Barnes said the Building and Zoning Department has not received any noise or nuisance complaints in regards to Hardin's business. Keating asked if letters informing neighbors of this hearing had been sent out. Barnes replied that those letters had been sent, but did not elicit any responses. Ayraud questioned the Applicant if it would be feasible to use the attached garage for his business and convert the detached shop as a garage. Hardin replied that it would not be feasible, as accessibility to the detached garage from Drake Road to park his cars would be difficult. He further stated that even though there is a gate coming off Drake Road to the detached garage, his van could not get over the sidewalk curb to enable him to access the garage. Keating asked Hardin if there was a curb -cut at that point of entrance off Drake Road. Hardin responded that at this time there was not. Barnes interjected that the curb found off of Drake Road at the point of entrance to the Hardin property was a vertical curb, not the "rollover curb" found on residential streets. Barnes further stated that the City would not allow access to go over that type of curb because of possible damage that may occur and the ensuing repair costs. Barnes also mentioned that Drake Road is an arterial street and it would be doubtful that the City would allow a curb -cut permit for a homeowner off Drake Road, as they try to limit access off of arterial streets. Due to this, Barnes believed it would be improbable to expect approved access to be granted to Hardin off of Drake Road. ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 6 Public Participation: Jerry Riggs, owner of 706 Wagonwheel Drive, addressed the Board. Riggs owns property adjacent to Hardin's. Riggs mentioned that he is semi -retired and spends a great deal of time at home and he is probably well known for having knowledge of what activities are taking place in the neighborhood. Riggs stated that if he thought Hardin's business was disrupting the neighborhood with noise or might lower the neighboring property values, it would have been brought before this Board a long time ago. Riggs mentioned that Hardin is considerate of the neighbors and only works during daytime hours, not disturbing anyone in the early morning or evenings. Riggs noted that in brief exchanges with other neighbors on this subject, none of them ever had a problem with Hardin's business. Board Discussion: Breth made a motion to approve Appeal number 2260 due to the hardships stated, with the stipulation that it remain with this property owner and his current signage business and not be transferred to future owners of the property. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2260 was approved. 6. APPEAL 2261: --Approved Address: 1117 Clark Street Petitioner: Bill Stashak, Architect Zone: UE Section: 4.1(D)(2)(d) Breth excused himself from hearing appeal #2261, due to a conflict of interest. Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west side lot line from 20' to 10' for a proposed 1-story addition to a single family home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing setback along the west lot line is 13'. This subdivision was developed under the old zoning code and was zoned RL, wherin only a 5' setback was required. There are numerous buildings in this subdivision that are not in compliance with the 20' side setback requirement of the UE zone. This is the most feasible location for the addition. Staff Comments: ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 7 Barnes commented that this property is in the Urban Estate zoning district. The UE zone requires significantly larger setbacks than the RL (Low -Density Residential) zone that applied to this property until 1997. Most of the lots in this 17 - lot subdivision are between 12,000 and 15,000 square feet and many of the existing buildings do not conform to the UE setback requirements. Barnes mentioned that the RL requirements are less restrictive than the UE and this subdivision was originally developed under the RL requirements. Due to the more urban characteristics of this subdivision it was re -zoned in 1997 to a UE district. Ayraud asked Barnes if he knew what the purpose was for changing this particular subdivision from RL to UE. Barnes responded that the UE requires a minimum lot area of a half -acre, of the 17 lots included in this subdivision, 14 of them are in the 12,000 to 15,000 square foot range. After receiving this variance request and noting that many of the lot sizes fell below the half -acre requirements for UE zoning, Barnes tried to do some background investigation, but was unable to contact those that had more information on the subject. Barnes surmised that the re -zoning perhaps was due to the fact that this subdivision was surrounded by rural properties, county and open land. Slides pertinent to this appeal were shown by Nuckols. She noted that in the slide showing the area of the proposed addition, there is a fence along the west property line which is partially hidden by extensive landscaping. Nuckols presented a slide showing an existing fireplace stack noting the setback of that fireplace is presently 13'. With construction of the proposed addition, the setback would be extended 2' beyond this point. Nuckols showed the Applicant's west property line and the neighboring property, noting that this side of the Applicant's home was currently setback at 13'. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Bill Stashak, addressed the Board. Stashak commented that most of the existing rooms of the Balmer home were small and the homeowner desired to have a larger room extended off the house and with a growing family, the homeowner's expressed a need for more room. An existing 13' wide porch was not large enough to accommodate the desired addition by itself. By utilizing portions of an existing dining room and adding 5' to the west side of the home, the proposed additional room would be 20' in width with a potential 24' length. Stashak presented a letter to the Board from his clients' homeowner association that included sketches of elevations. Keating asked Stashak why he couldn't incorporate the existing porch for the addition. Stashak demonstrated that the physical constraints of the existing home would not make that a viable option. Stashak noted that at the time he drew the plans, he was not aware of the re -zoning to UE subsequently changing the setbacks from 5' to a 20' requirement. Public Participation: Ned Balmer, homeowner of 1117 Clark Street, addressed the Board. He stated that he was in favor of granting the variance. ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 8 Keating questioned Barnes about the letter the Board reviewed from the homeowner's association regarding this appeal. The letter stated that they approved of the addition with the condition that none of the immediate neighbors objected. Barnes responded that Zoning had sent out letters informing the neighbors of this impending hearing and that we had not received any responses to that letter. Keating questioned the homeowner, Ned Balmer, if there were any neighbors that expressed their concerns to him. Balmer noted that one neighbor to the north had approached him about the effect of the view when the trees are defoliated in the winter. Balmer also mentioned there were some individuals that had expressed some concern that were proposing to purchase the property directly to the west of his home. Balmer commented that he knew those individuals were in the audience and stated that he welcomed their comments. Stockover questioned the audience if there were any persons present that opposed this appeal. Bill Gardel, addressed the Board. Gardel stated that he was slated to close the sale on the neighboring property to the west on the 14`h of this month. Gardel further stated that he only became aware of this appeal the previous night. He said that in his dealings with the realtor to purchase the neighboring property, he was told there were no plans from any surrounding properties to commence any construction in the near future. Gardel commented that although he had no objections in principal to the proposed addition, he has been unable to view any plans of the construction and therefore could not come to an informed opinion. Gardel's concern was with the proposed windows to be placed in the addition and the possible infringement on his privacy and if there would be a living fence to shield the addition from his view. Ayraud asked Gardel if his main concern was the actual construction, or that the addition would be closer to the property line of the home he has under contract. Gardel reiterated that he was concerned with the infringement of privacy, the effects of the view and how the addition would affect the value of the property he is proposing to purchase. Gardel stated that without seeing elevations and plans of the proposed addition, he could not make an intelligent decision on whether or not he actually has an objection to the construction. Keating questioned the Board on the possibility of postponing further hearing of this appeal due to the fact that the letter from the homeowner's association states that they only approve of the construction if every immediate neighbor approves. Stockover countered that at this time, Mr. Gardel was not currently a legal homeowner of the neighboring property. Keating asked Deputy City Attorney, Paul Eckman for a legal opinion in this case. Eckman stated that the criteria the Board uses to judge these matters has no relationship directly to the opinion of any architectural committee or homeowner's association, but it does indirectly connect with the question that the Board has to decide if granting this variance could be detrimental to the public good. Barnes asked the Applicant if he had additional drawings or details that may respond to some of the concerns presented. Stashak replied that the drawings presented to the Board are preliminary drawings made to illustrate the intent of the addition and to be used to obtain contractor pricing and budgeting and are not the final drawings. ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 9 Stockover asked Stashak where they would be accessing the back yard to begin excavation for the foundation for the addition. Stashak replied that they would be using smaller type equipment such as a Bobcat to do that work and most probably access through a gate at the east side of the house so as to minimize damage that would need to be restored. After reviewing a slide of the Applicant's back yard area, Stockover asked Stashak if the existing shrubs would not be removed. Stashak said they would stay as they are now. He added that the floor level of the proposed addition would be almost a foot below the existing home. Keating questioned Stashak if the windows on the proposed addition would be below the height of the shrubbery looking at the Applicant's property from the neighboring property. Stashak replied that he couldn't be certain, but it appeared that the windows would be below the top of the shrubs and the window size would only be 1'4" in height and be placed near the top of the 9' ceiling to be used for ventilation and light. Remington asked Gardel if after taking time today to talk to the Applicant and architect, he might be able to resolve his conflicts on this matter at this meeting today. Gardel responded that given the information presented, he did not think he could resolve his concerns today and he would like to have more time to address the variance issues. Balmer commented in order to complete the project as desired by Thanksgiving, he would need to start soon. Addressing the concerns of the potential new neighbor, Balmer noted that the addition would only be extending 2' beyond the existing fireplace stack and that adding square footage to his home, may in turn translate into a higher property value for the neighborhood. Stashak commented that after the completion of the proposed addition, 25' would still remain between the Balmer home and the home that may be purchased by Gardel. Stashak asked that the Board consider the actual physical plan and the variance request as it applies to distances from the property lines and not be misconstrued as looking for window types and elevations. Board Discussion. Stockover commented that what was presented to the Board was strictly a request for a side yard setback and it would be unreasonable to ask for an owner to spend a substantial amount of money for a finished set of drawings to present at this hearing when he was not sure a variance would be granted. Stockover said he believes it is the Board's job to look at this appeal and decide whether they would allow the Applicant to build at the distance of the applied for setback and then let the City dictate the building requirements. Stockover deferred to Barnes to verify that his analysis was correct. Barnes replied that the City did not have standards that applied to residential development in regard to architecture design, although the City does have a height limitation of 3 stories in the UE district. Given those parameters, the City would not be empowered to designate the design requirements. Stockover questioned if the Board would be allowed to set a height restriction stipulation in the granting of the variance. Eckman stated that as there is already a height restriction in place, the Board could set a more stringent restriction as a condition of the variance. ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 10 The Board discussed the option of imposing a height restriction and if it was the Board's function to dictate such a restriction based on the information presented for this appeal. There was also some discussion on the possibility of a height restriction only imposed on window height rather than the structure itself, or perhaps a condition that the living fence be required to remain or be replanted if that hedge died. The question also arose on whether to table this appeal until the next hearing date so as to allow the parties involved more time to resolve their concerns and what the impact of taking this action might be. Shannon made a motion that the Board approve appeal #2261 for the hardship created by recent zoning changes. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Abstain: Breth Barnes commented that he would encourage the two property owners discussing this appeal to work together to obtain a mutual understanding of the possible impacts of this appeal approval and how to mitigate any concerns. 7. APPEAL 2262: -- Approved Address: 422 North Loomis Petitioner: Steve Erthal, Contractor Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south property line from 5' to 4' in order to allow a proposed 1-story addition to the rear of the existing home. The addition will line up with the existing south wall of the home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a narrow lot, only 35'wide. The existing house is already at a 4' setback and the addition will line up with the existing walls. Staff Comments: Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Slides were shown of the Applicant's property lines from all directions and the location of the proposed addition. Nuckols indicated where 10' of the existing home would be taken out and where construction of the addition would result in the house extending 10' from that point. Applicant Participation: ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 11 Applicant, Steve Erthal, addressed the Board. Erthal stated that the homeowner would just like to maintain the current 4' setback on the south side with the proposed 2-bedroom addition and keep the asthetic values of the house by lining up the proposed addition with the existing house. Erthal also noted that the tree shown in the slide presentation on the south side of the house would remain. Shannon asked what type of materials would be used in the addition. Erthal replied that the same siding and paint color would be used as was in the existing house and then the entire home would be re -roofed with the same shingles. Public Participation: Charlie Micerlian, owner, addressed the Board. Micerlian stated that he was a neighbor of the Applicant's, was the owner of the property and was in favor of granting this appeal. Board Discussion: Shannon asked the if there was an alley with parking behind the property. The Applicant responded that there is an alley, but no parking is available. Keating made a motion to approve appeal #2262 based on the hardship stated. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2262 was approved. 8. APPEAL 2263: --Approved Address: 825 LaPorte Avenue Petitioner: Scott Titterington, Tenant Zone: NCL Section: 3.8.3(1) Back rg ound: The variance would allow a home occupation (publishing business) to be conducted in an existing detached building (former garage building) instead of within the dwelling. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The detached building already exists and has previously been used as a home occupation after having received a variance in 1996. If the home were in a new subdivision, where garages are attached, a variance would not be necessary. There is no attached garage on the lot. Staff Comments: • ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 12 A similar variance was approved for this property in 1996 for a real estate appraisal business. The variance was for that particular business only. Therefore, any new home occupation must receive a new variance. Slides were presented by Nuckols showing the Applicant's property to the south and noting the distance from LaPorte Avenue was 62'. Views of the garage were shown noting its relationship to the neighboring property to the east. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Scott Titterington, addressed the Board. Titterington stated that he and his wife would like to continue to utilize the existing office in the garage as an office for their business. Keating asked Titterington if he just moved into the home at this address. Titterington replied that he had recently moved in. Titterington stated that the office was used by the previous owner as an appraisal business for real estate and health care product distribution. Titterington elaborated on what his publishing business entailed. This business was a monthly magazine named "Parent Magazine" which would include editorial processes etc. and does not involve printing presses or layout equipment which is jobbed out to other sources. Keating asked Barnes to reiterate the reason the previous owner was able to conduct business using the office, but now the Applicant needed to apply again for another variance. Barnes replied that the variance granted in 1996 for the previous owner of the property carried a condition that it was specific for that particular business and subsequent change of business or ownership required the Board to hear any subsequent requests. Board Discussion: Shannon made a motion that the Board approve appeal #2263 with the stipulation that any change in use or ownership must be brought before the Board for another appeal hearing. Keating seconded the motion. Public Participation: None. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2263 was approved. 9. APPEAL 2259: -- Tabled Address: 4606 South Mason Street Petitioner: Fred Frantz of Adcon Advertising, Contractor Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(I) ZBA July 8, 1999 Page 13 City Deputy Attorney, Paul Eckman, excused himself from any hearing proceedings involved in appeal #2259, due to conflict of interest. Board Discussion: The Board discussed the possibilities of hearing this appeal in the absence of the Applicant. There were some comments made that some of the Board members had questions regarding this appeal that only the Applicant could answer. Shannon made a motion to table appeal #2259 until the following meeting, August 12, 1999. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2259 was tabled. Other Business: A. The Board had a discussion on determining an interim Chairperson for next month's meeting as Stockover would be unable to attend the August meeting. Shannon volunteered to take the interim Chairperson position. As today was the final Board meeting for Keating's term, Breth accepted the interim Co -Chairman position for the August meeting. Barnes noted that the September meeting is the annual meeting where officers for the next ZBA term year will be selected. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator