HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/08/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 8, 1999, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Martin Breth, Dan Keating, Eva Lieser, Diane Shannon and William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kathryn Krause
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Delynn Coldiron, 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 March 18, 1999 meeting were approved.
3. APPEAL 2244 -- Approved
Address: 1815 LaPorte Avenue
Petitioner: Valerie Favicchio, owner
Zone: LMN
Section: 3.5.2(D)(3)
Back round:
The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5'
to 2' 10" in order to allow a one story addition to the rear of a single family dwelling. The
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 2
east wall of the addition will line up with the existing east wall, which is already only 2' 10"
from the lot line. This variance was heard at the March 18, 1999 ZBA meeting, but was
tabled and rescheduled for the April 8, 1999 meeting.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshin:
Due to existing conditions with the narrowness of the lot, the existing wall, and the location
of the existing detached garage, the proposed configuration is the most feasible. This allows
existing door and window openings to be utilized, as well as load bearing walls, foundations,
etc.
Staff Comments:
This variance was tabled at the March 18, 1999 meeting in order to give the applicant and the
neighbor an opportunity to discus the concerns that were raised at the March meeting. The
parties have met and the item has been placed on this agenda for consideration.
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Valerie Favicchio, addressed the Board. She mentioned that her lot is very
narrow; only 50' wide, but very deep. The house is very small, under 1,000 sq. ft., and she
wanted to add some additional square footage. There is an existing detached garage in the
back, on the west side of the property, which limits the distance that an addition can extend
on that side of the house. Applicant has tried to minimize the amount of area that the
additional will extend along the east side by extending the addition as far as possible on the
west side, and by extending the addition across the full length of the house.
Applicant mentioned that the concerns that were raised at the March Board meeting as far as
windows along the east side of the addition and possible run off from the roof line onto the
neighbor's fence have been resolved. Applicant has agreed to put up gutters along the
addition, as well as along the entire house, and skylight options are being pursued in lieu of
the windows that were originally proposed.
Board Member Shannon asked applicant what would happen if the addition were reduced by
3' in order to make it conform to setback requirements. Applicant answered that she has
been working with an architect and they are trying to use the existing exterior load bearing
wall and all of the existing openings. This reduction would alter the floor plan enough that
applicant would need to pursue other floor plan options, perhaps changing to a two-story
addition, have the plans redone, etc. Applicant believes that the current proposal makes the
most efficient use of the lot, the existing structure and is most financially feasible for her.
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 3
Public Participation:
Gail Cass addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is the applicant's neighbor to the east.
At the March Board meeting he voiced opposition to the variance. Since that time, he and
the applicant have had an opportunity to reach some compromises. He is no longer opposed
to the variance that has been requested as long as the compromises that were agreed upon are
done.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Keating mentioned that he was in favor of the appeal at the last hearing. Now
that compromises have been reached and there is no opposition from neighbors, he can see no
problem with this variance request.
Board Member Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2244 for the hardship stated.
Keating seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Lieser, Stockover, Keating, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2244 was approved.
4. APPEAL 2246 -- Approved
Address: 320 N. College Avenue
Petitioner: Wickham Gustafson Architects
Zone: T
Section(s): 2.9.2(K)
Background:
The variance would allow an additional extension of 6 months to Appeals 2214 and 2237.
Specifically, Appeal 2214 was approved on April 9, 1998 in order to allow the construction
of a car wash building to be used in conjunction with the Schrader gas station and
convenience store located at 320 N. College. The code required that the permits for the new
building must have been obtained by October 9, 1998, or an extension must be approved.
Due to delays in the review process, a 6 month extension was granted by Appeal 2237 on
October 8, 1998. That extension expires on April 8, 1999, and the applicant is requesting one
additional extension in order to allow time to complete the development review process.
This would be the last extension allowed by the code.
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 4
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See Petitioner's letter.
Staff s Comments:
Barnes mentioned that the Board first heard this appeal in April of last year. The property is
zoned in the T (transition) zone which means that the only uses that are allowed are the uses
that are already there. Anytime someone wants to change the use, they are required to
petition to have the property rezoned. The Code was written so that new structures could be
built that were considered ancillary or customary with the principle structure if a variance
was obtained from the Board.
The original request in this case was to grant a variance to allow the existing restaurant
building to be demolished and replaced with the typical type of car wash building that you
regularly see at gas station/convenience store setups. The Board approved that variance in
April, 1998. Variances are only good for six months, unless specifically authorized for a
longer period of time at the time the variance is approved. That was not the case in this
instance, so the initial variance would have expired on October 9, 1998. The Petitioners
came back to the Board at the October meeting to request an extension due to the fact that
their plans had not completed the City's review process. The Board granted that extension
which expires on April 9, 1999.
The process is not quite completed yet. It was Barnes' understanding that the process was
very close to being done. The drawings that were provided to Board Members were the latest
revision of plans after having gone through the various cycles of the City's process and
address most of the site and landscape issues. It is mainly the civil drawings — utility plans,
etc., that still need some work.
Applicants are requesting a second extension to assure that the variance stays valid.
Keating asked if the original variance approval passed unanimously. Banes confirmed this.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Don Shields of Wickham Gustafson Architects, addressed the Board. He
apologized for having to come to the Board for an additional extension but mentioned that it
has taken some time to work with the City on issues related to accesses, road improvements
along Willow, and creating a project that will blend in with the Old Town atmosphere. Plans
have been submitted to the Building & Zoning department and are in the review process so
that a building permit can be obtained. Applicant said that there were only a couple of minor
issues that remained outstanding and was confident that the project could be completed
within the six month extension that was being requested.
E
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 5
Barnes pointed out that the current code prohibits any further extension requests. If applicant
was unable to complete the project within the next six months, should an extension be
granted, a new variance request would have to be submitted.
Brad March, attorney for Schrader Oil, addressed the Board. He mentioned that this property
was involved in a condemnation case with the City. The railroad tracks were relocated across
the property which required the reconfiguration of the property. This action is still in process
and has caused a portion of the delay. The first phase of this project was to remodel the
existing station which was delayed due to the condemnation case. The second phase of this
project, which is anticipated will be brought before the Board within the next six to eight
months, is to rebuild a storage building on the back part of the lot. This phase is contingent
on Schrader getting ownership of this property which is an issue that the City has been
working on with Burlington Northern. This issue seems to be moving forward. Based on the
advancements that have been made on the issues related to this project, March also felt that
this project could be completed within the next six months.
Public Particiyation:
William Sears, adjacent property owner to the east, addressed the Board. He mentioned that
he wrote a letter in support of the original variance request in April, 1998, and wanted to
reaffirm his support for this project.
Board Discussion:
Shannon mentioned that a well done project that is coping with all of the City's rules and
regulations may very well take more time than anyone anticipated. She was in support of the
extension.
Board Member Lieser was also in support of the request. She did not feel that applicant had
any control over the issues that have caused the delays. She was also in favor of the
extension.
Keating made a motion to accept Appeal 2246 for the hardship stated. Breth seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Lieser, Stockover, Keating, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2246 was approved.
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 6
5. APPEAL 2247 — Approved
Address: 524 Sheldon Drive
Petitioner: Ellen Martin, Owner
Zone: RL
Section(s): 4.3.(D)(2)(b)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20' to 18' in order to allow
the construction of a new attached, 2-car garage to the existing home.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
In order to have the minimum depth needed in which to park a car (18'), it is necessary to
encroach 2' into the required front setback. Without the additional 2', the garage depth
would only be 16'3" for one of the cars. The front property line is actually 15' behind the
curb, so the garage will be 33' from the street. In newer subdivisions, the property line is
only 9' behind the curb, resulting in the possibility that newer homes and garages are only
29' from the street, without the need for a variance.
Staff Comments:
Nuckols provided slides relative to this appeal. She mentioned that applicant has proposed to
change the existing garage into a studio and to construct a 2-car garage in the front. The
house directly to the south has a 2-car garage, as do numerous other homes in the
neighborhood.
Nuckols mentioned that typically, in new subdivisions, the property line is 9' behind the
curb, with a required front setback of 20'. This results in a distance of 29' from the curb. In
this instance, if a variance were granted, the applicant's home would still be 33' from the
curb.
A slide was presented that showed the property of the neighbor to the north of applicant.
Although actual measurements were not available, it appeared that the property extended
further towards the sidewalk than what was being requested by the applicant.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Ellen Martin, addressed the Board. She mentioned that she first bought the house
in 1992 when she was single. She is now married and expecting her first child. She is trying
to make the house, which is in a neighborhood that she loves, expand with her growing
family needs.
rI
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 7
The 2' variance is being requested for the new construction that is planned. The property
will still be 33' from the curb which carries through with the design of the old neighborhood.
Applicant had a chance to talk with neighbors, share her proposal, etc. She also was able to
measure the distance from her neighbor's property to the curb and the distance was 331/2'.
Lieser asked about the reason for the property line being 15' back from the curb. Barnes
answered that the first 15' from the curb is public right-of-way which is owned by the City.
The property lines vary a lot in older neighborhoods; anywhere from 20' behind the curb to
4' behind the curb depending on the street, whether or not the street has been widened, etc.
It is unusual to see a 15' distance. Subdivisions that were approved and started developing
25 years ago were under a different set of City street standards. The right-of-way distances
were different, the curb styles were different, sidewalks were attached, etc. With the new
street standards, the distance was reduced to 9'.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Shannon mentioned that this project appears to be a good one. Applicant is proposing to
match the addition to the existing structure in terms of roof line and brick. The proposal is
also in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Shannon made a motion to approve
Appeal 2247 for the hardship stated. Keating seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Lieser, Stockover, Keating, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2247 was approved for the hardship stated.
6. APPEAL 2248/2249 — Approved
Address: 415 N. Mason Court #7 and #8
Petitioner: Dennis Sovick, Owner
Zone: LMN
Section(s): 3.5.2(D)(3)
Background:
02248 — 415 N. Mason Ct. #7) — The variance would reduce the required side yard setback
from 5' to 0' along the west lot line for the attached garage/apartment portion of the new
residential building to be constructed on this lot.
• • ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 8
(#2249 — 415 N. Mason Ct. #8) — The variance wold reduce the required side yard setback
from 5' to 0' along the east iot line for the attached garage/apartment portion of the new
residential building to be constructed on this lot.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
When this PUD was approved, it was uncertain as to the exact housing style that would be
constructed and its marketability. If the garages on the 2 adjacent lots are 5' from the lot line,
then a dead space is created between the buildings, and the useable yard becomes smaller on
these narrow lots. Attaching the garages creates more yard space and reduces the building
mass.
Staff Comments:
Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. She mentioned that this project is located in
the Martinez PUD and applicant is proposing a 0' side yard setback so that the garages can be
attached.
Under the old code, this is an item that the Board would not have had to review. PUDs could
vary the setbacks by applying for a minor amendment, which is a non-public hearing process.
Under current code, a variance must be approved as a first step, followed by application for a
minor amendment.
Keating asked if these were the only two single family homes that are being proposed in this
development. Barnes answered that this is mixed -use development with a number of lots that
have been approved for detached single-family homes, with the potential for apartments over
the garage so that they could either be single-family homes or duplexes. There are also some
multi -family buildings in the project, as well as one building that has both residential and
commercial uses, and a building further to the east that is proposed to be all commercial.
Lieser asked about whether access to the garage was from a street or an alley. Nuckols
confirmed that access is from the street.
Shannon asked if the apartments above the garage were a separate unit. Barnes answered that
there has been discussion about this. For duplexes, the garages would have to be attached to
the structure. If the garages are detached, then there would be two single family dwellings on
the same lot. The PUD that was approved for this project requires apartments to be attached
to the main unit. The applicant's proposal is for one dwelling unit above each garage in
addition to the house.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Dennis Sovick, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is the owner, designer
and builder on the project. He is also building the multi -family project to the west and the
mixed -use building further to the east.
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 9
Applicant provided Board Members with a new site plan of what is being proposed, together
with a site plan of what would be done should the appeal not be granted.
Applicant stated that this is anew development just on the outskirts of downtown. The lots
all face the park. There are no streets, alleys, etc., in front of the houses and the park, only a
pedestrian access. The street is along the back side of the house. The garages will actually
face the street and is how the homes would be approached by vehicle. Due to this difference
in design, there are a lot of different considerations that need to be kept in mind. The lots are
relatively narrow and small — only 50' wide, which also creates unique design considerations
in order to create a workable and visually pleasing overall development.
Sovick stated that the development was originally accepted as having detached garages with
apartments. However, the submitted plan shows attached garages. The Water and Sewer
Department will not give a separate water and sewer tap to two separate buildings on the
same lot. It is necessary that the garages be attached to satisfy Water & Sewer's
requirements.
Applicant was initially told by City planners that his proposal could be implemented by
applying for a minor amendment to the plat. Because of the change in policy in the last two
years, he found out that a variance approval was required in addition to the minor
amendment.
Another consideration that applicant has had to work with is a large setback of 30' that is
required for utilities on the park side, which has created an even more constricted envelope to
build a house within.
Applicant reviewed the plan that would be implemented if his appeal was not granted. He
mentioned that this option leaves less useable yard and creates a 10' gangway between the
two garages. There is the potential that a fence could be built there in the future which would
add to the congestion. The stairs to the upper apartment would need to go down to the side
yard next to the garage which would further constrict the yard. This also puts an outside
staircase on the street side of the lot, which has a negative visual impact on the project.
Meeting all of the required setbacks would also cause there to be four 2-story structures on
these two lots, instead of only three if the garage/apartment units were allowed to be
constructed side -by -side. This would require additional roof overhangs, more exterior
exposed walls, and would be detrimental to the appeal and look of the overall development.
Applicant feels that his proposal creates more yard, hides the stairs, reduces the number of
buildings, and creates a better overall presence. He also believes that it incorporates the new
vision for Ft. Collins that is set out in the City Plan.
Applicant has received a lot of support for his proposal from the various City departments
that he has worked with, as well as his developer and architect. He believes his plan is a
good one that is handcuffed by City policy.
• • ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 10
Keating asked if applicant would be marketing the apartments separately from the home.
Applicant answered that the lots will not be divided so there will always be only one owner
who will own both the house and the apartment.
There was discussion regarding access to the apartment above the garage. Applicant
mentioned that the stairway to the apartment could be accessed through the garage. There
was a question about how access would be obtained if the tenant did not use the garage.
Applicant answered that the tenant would have to walk around the structure in order to access
the staircase and stated that this might pose somewhat of a problem. He mentioned that the
plans are preliminary at this point, and he might readdress this issue.
Breth asked if there was any kind of drainage easement between the two lots. Applicant
answered that he has checked with the Stormwater Department and the drainage can be
handled through the system that goes out towards the park. There is a swale currently being
developed that will take all of the water from the development and lead it towards the river.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Keating mentioned that the stairway arrangement seems a little odd, but was not convinced it
would create too much of a problem. He liked the overall design and stated his support for
the appeal.
Lieser mentioned that the 5' setback is very common in most subdivisions in town. She also
liked the overall design but stated that she was having a hard time finding a hardship in this
situation.
Shannon agreed that she was also having a hard time finding a hardship but stated that she
felt that the proposed design was in keeping with City Plan. She liked the idea that the
density of mass would be reduced.
Stockover asked about the difference in the building footprints between the information that
was provided by applicant and the information that was provided in board packets. One
house was smaller, deck location was changed, etc. Applicant answered that Lot 7 is not
totally designed yet; the plans are conceptual at this point. Lot 8 is set. He has not moved
forward with final design since the outcome of this variance request will change the way
applicant proceeds.
Keating mentioned that he does not have any problem with the hardship that is stated in the
variance request because the lots are narrow, 50' lots. He thought the dead space that would
be created by not granting the variance would be a problem later on.
ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 11
Breth stated that he was in support of this appeal. The 10' space that would be between the
garages if the variance were not granted would essentially become dead space. Putting the
garages together adds 5' to the useable yard space. He also agreed that this scenario falls
under the hardship of a small lot since they are only 50' wide. The building footprint was
also required to be reduced due to utility easements.
Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2248 for the hardship stated. Keating seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Lieser, Keating, Breth, Shannon
Nays: Stockover
Appeal 2248 was approved for the hardship stated.
Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2249 for the hardship stated. Keating seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Lieser, Keating, Breth, Shannon
Nays: Stockover
Appeal 2249 was approved for the hardship stated.
7. APPEAL 2250 — Approved
Address: 1033 West Vine Drive
Petitioner: Claudia Schmiert, Owner
Zone: NCM
Section(s): 4.7(E)(3)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback distance from 15' to 11' in order to
allow the existing detached garage building to be converted to a single family home. The
existing building is currently only I from the property line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The building is already existing and is structurally sound. The owner would like to reuse it
rather than demolish it.
• • ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 12
Staff Comments:
Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. She mentioned that applicant is requesting a
change of use for the existing garage so she can use it as a single family home. The change
of use requires that the setbacks be in compliance with the code.
Applicant has several options including moving the building forward, moving the rear wall of
the building forward, or obtaining a variance to reduce the rear setback.
There is a ditch that runs along the east side of the garage. There is a vacant lot next to
applicant's property which is owned by a family member.
Keating mentioned that the original platted subdivision had three lots on it. On the survey,
there are only two lots shown and they are split in the opposite direction. Barnes mentioned
that the property shown on the plat which shows lots in the surrounding area is part of a
family trust. The southernmost portion of the property is a separate parcel. The site plan is a
more accurate depiction of the area in question for this variance. Keating asked for
clarification on whether or not Lot 11 was included in this appeal. Barnes mentioned that Lot
11 is not part of this appeal.
Shannon asked about the 11' setback if there were no usage change for the garage. Nuckols
mentioned that the building would not have to be brought into compliance as long as it
remains a garage. At the time the garage was built, it was most likely in compliance with the
code. If a change of use is granted, however, compliance is required.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Claudia Schimert, addressed the Board. She mentioned that when she purchased
the property she had a use for the garage. At this point in time she no longer needs it. She
did not want to demolish the building. She thought that the building had great potential for
becoming a home.
She had plans drawn up before she realized that the garage was not in compliance with the
required setbacks. At this point she cannot go forward without obtaining the requested
variance.
Applicant mentioned that she believes she can make the property more appealing and make
better use of the property by changing the use of this structure to a single family home.
Keating asked if applicant had any idea of the cost that would be added to the project if the
building were demolished. Applicant thought it would increase the cost by $30,000 to
$40,000.
• ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 13
Shannon asked if the garage was on a separate lot. Applicant confirmed this. Shannon asked
if the building would conform in all other areas except for the rear setback. Applicant
confirmed this. Bames added that it meets the lot area and lot width requirements, etc.
Shannon asked applicant what she intended to use as a garage. Applicant answered that she
has another garage elsewhere. Shannon mentioned that she could see the potential for
someone to come to the Board in the future to ask for another variance allowing them to
build a garage for the original home. Barnes mentioned that they would only have to come
before the Board if they were proposing to build a garage that was not in compliance with
required setbacks.
Lieser asked for clarification on whether the house was on one lot and the garage was on a
separate lot. Barnes answered that applicant would be proposing a lot line adjustment. Right
now the lot line runs east and west. The proposal is to change this so the lot line runs north
and south. A new lot will not be created; the lots lines will be reconfigured, which will result
in both the house and the garage sitting on separate lots.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Shannon mentioned that this project appears to be a good idea. Since the structure already
exists at the I V setback, she believed that is where the hardship was created. She was in
favor of the appeal.
Keating made a motion to approve Appeal 2250 based on the hardship stated. Shannon
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Lieser, Stockover, Keating, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2250 was approved for the hardship stated.
6. Other Business:
A. Historic Preservation Issues
Karen McWilliams, a Historic Preservation Planner with the City's Advance Planning
Department gave a presentation to the Board regarding historic preservation issues.
Board Members briefly discussed the information that was presented.
• ZBA
Apr. 8, 1999
Page 14
B. Appeal Hardships
Barnes addressed Appeals 2248 and 2249 and the related hardships. Code provisions
related to hardships were briefly discussed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
William Stockover, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator