Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/11/1996ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1996 Council Liaison: Ann Azari Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 8:30am Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 11, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present Huddleson, Lieser, Breth, Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. Staff Present: Peter Barnes, Building & Zoning Ann Chantler, Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, City Attorney The minutes from the March meeting were approved. Appeal 2166. 1600 W Mountain by Susan Neimanowner approved with conditions Section 29- 119(4) and 29-119(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 8 feet and reduce the street side set -back from 15 feet to 8.5 feet along Fishback Ave. to allow the construction of a two -car, detached garage. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing house sits midway on the property some 36 feet back from the front property line. There is no garage at present and the front does not have the room to locate the garage there and not violate setbacks there. The only reasonable location is at rear. The right-of-way extends 10 feet beyond the sidewalk on Fishback, normal is 2 to 3 feet. There is an effective 20 foot side setback behind the curb. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this property is located in the Eastside/Westside neighborhood. The house faces Mountain Avenue, the legal front yard. He said, like approximately 50% of other houses in that neighborhood, the old garage/carport was converted into living space. Huddleson asked if the new proposed garage could be set more to the west. Barnes stated there was a tree in the back yard as well as three storage sheds. Paul and Susan Neiman, owners, appeared before the Board. They said the tree was an issue they considered, they did not want to take out the tree. Neiman said they set the garage back to take into consideration the roots of the tree. Bill Gray, said he has lived in the neighborhood 31 years, lives directly across the street. He said this was a main artery for traffic and things are very crowded. He said they had a garage when they bought the house and changed it to living space. He told the Board he didn't want this to set a precedent in this neighborhood . Robert Pierson, 106 Fishback appeared before the Board. He agreed with Mr. Gray, there is a traffic problem turning off Mountain Avenue onto Laporte Ave. Nancy Gray, 106 Fishback, said she was not necessarily opposed to this appeal but she said the neighborhood was designed very tight. She said the Neimans were good neighbors and the reason neighbors were present showed they cared. She said her concern was once a variance was granted, it stayed. With no neighborhood covenants, there was no way to protect what can be done, except by zoning code appeals. She wanted to see the plans for the garage and wanted the garage to blend in with the neighborhood. She said a huge garage would not be compatible and would not be acceptable. City Attorney, Eckman, addressed the concerns. He said if this variance is granted the Board needs to be sure it is not detrimental to the neighborhood good. Paul Neiman addressed the Board. He said when they purchased the house, the garage had already been converted. He showed the Board the plan for a $4000.00 proposed garage to match the house. He said there is traffic on the street, but probably not more than the other 20 streets in the area. Huddleson asked Barnes if the configuration of the lot was a hardship. Bames said the lot is 68' wide, depth is 98', a little shallow from normal. Barnes said the setbacks may be normal for this neighborhood, but not in new subdivisions. The tree could possibly be considered a hardship. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 3 Breth asked if Neiman would consider making the garage smaller. Neiman stated he wanted some work area as well as storage for the cars and needed it that size. Larry Hegling, 114 Fishback, appeared before the Board and said he wanted to know if the three metal sheds would remain in the back yard. Neiman said they just got married 10 months ago and when he moved in the house he put a shed to store his stuff, his brother also has a shed, and the wife had a shed. He said one shed would be gone soon and the other, his brother's, he hoped to be gone soon too. Huddleson stated the hardship was the shallowness of the lot and the tree. He had concern with the size of the garage. Gustafson said the shallowness of the lot and the placement of the house were a hardship. Breth agreed with the hardships stated. He also had a concern with the size of the garage. Leiser was concerned about the construction material and the removal of the sheds. Board member Gustafson moved to approve Appeal 2166 for the hardship of the shallow lot, the placement of the house, and the existing tree, with the conditions that 1) the building be finished similar in color and material, and 2) the roof pitch be between 2/12 and 4/12 on the new building.. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Huddleson, Breth, Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. Nays: Lieser. The motion passed. Appeal 2167 224 West Street owner Annette Miller. approved. Section 29-167(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north side lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet to allow the construction of a new, one -car garage. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The applicants will be removing the original carnage house which sits 2 feet from the side lot line and build a new garage in its place. They prefer to align the new garage with the existing driveway. The lot is narrow (50% typical of others in the neighborhood. The existing gravel driveway cannot be widened due to the principal dwelling location. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 4 Barnes said the garage would be a bit larger than what presently exists, but would remain a one car garage. Annette Miller, owner, appeared before the Board. She said the current floor of the carriage house was dirt and gravel. The plan for the new garage would be cement, and the construction of the garage would match the character of the house. Breth asked if they could move the garage to the south and east and then comply with the setbacks. Miller said there was landscaping behind the garage, the garden, lilacs and flowers. She said they would like to keep the back yard as is. She said the neighbors were supportive. She submitted drawings to the Board of the proposed garage. Jim Tanner, 215 Park Street, said he supported this appeal and also identified himself as a member of the Landmark Preservation Committee. He said many people in this kind of neighborhood want to replace current garages. He said if the proposed garage were moved over, then a lot of the back yard would be cut off. He referred to the Eastside/Westside plan and encouraged the Board to let the petitioner build the garage on the current footprint. Gustafson said the narrowness of lot creates a hardship and commended the owner for wanting to improve neighbor. Board member Gustafson moved to approve Appeal 2167 for the narrowness of the lot. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Huddleson, Lieser, Breth, Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. The motion passed. Appeal 2168 1015 West Oak by owner. Mary Sewell approved. Section 29-167(5). The variance would reduce the required side yard setback from 6.5 feet to 2.5 feet to allow the construction of a two-story addition to the rear portion of the house. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Applicant wishes to make the addition contiguous with the existing building without creating an offset to the west side or reduce the addition width to meet the 6.5 foot setback. (Addition to remain at a 24 foot width). The lot is narrow at a 40 foot width. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 5 One letter was received in favor of this appeal as long as the addition was similar in character to the existing home. Barnes stated this is not unusual that the existing home is nonconforming in this neighborhood. Mary Sewell, owner, appeared before the Board. She said her goal was to keep the line of the house the same and would continue the roof line to match the house.. She said the lot was narrow. John, her designer, said the house was off -set on the property as were others in the neighborhood. Sewell said the structure in the back was a barn that had been there for a long time. She said she would maintain the building materials to match the house. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2168 for the hardship stated. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Huddleson, Lieser, Breth, Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2169 813 Foxtail Street by Darrell Hammettowner, denied Section 29-147(1), 29- 133(4). ------ The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback requirement from 15 feet to 6 feet in order to allow the construction of a new, detached 24' X 24' garage in the rear of the yard. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner desires to construct a detached garage to store a race car. There is no room to add on to the side of the existing garage and the rear yard is the only location. If the garage is located further from the rear lot line, it would be so close to the house that a car could not get into the garage. Staff comments: Since an attached 2-car garage already exists on the property, and if the Board finds that a hardship exists and wants to grant some relief, the Board may want to consider whether a one -car garage would be more suitable. A lesser variance may be required with a smaller building. One letter was received in opposition of this appeal. (attached) Barnes said the house is a bi-level and has a current usable two -car garage. Barnes said the proposed new garage was 24' x 24'. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 6 Darrell Hammett appeared before the Board. He submitted a petition of neighbor's, signatures in support of this appeal. Lieser asked why he needed a two -car garage for his race car. Hammet said to work on the car he needs the room. He said the he has had things stolen and wants to keep everything in the garage. Huddleson asked Hammett to state his hardship. Hammett said he could put the garage in the backyard, it's hard to make the corner to get into the garage, his wife gardens and she didn't want to give up any yard, and this plan makes the most sense. Greg Smith, 818 Sitka, appeared before the Board. He said he has a long lot and the garage would be not be in his sight lines, he was in favor of this appeal. Huddleson stated it was a good idea, but failed to see a hardship. Gustafson agreed. Lieser said he could put the garage in the back yard somewhere else and not need a variance. Board member Huddleson moved to deny Appeal 2169 for a lack of hardship. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Huddleson, Lieser, Breth, Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. The motion passed. Board member Leiser was excused from the meeting after Appeal #2169. Appeal 2170 401 N Shields Street by Ronald Biller owner approved,Section 29-459(1). ----- The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building instead of within the dwelling located on the lot. The home occupation is for an office/conference room area and storage room for a contracting (remodeling) business. The proposal is to remove the existing, detached garage and construct a new, detached, two-story garage/office/storage. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The home is very small. The alley provided good access and parking for clients, and there is no room in the house. The existing garage is in bad shape and needs to be torn down. The owner wants to construct a new garage in its place and at the same time design a building to accommodate his business. ----- Staff comments: In the past, the Board has granted variances for properties in the older part of town to allow home occupations in detached buildings. Generally, those are granted when the applicant proposes to use an existing building. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 7 However, in this case the owner desires to demolish the existing building and build a new one. The existing building is about 330 square feet, one story. The proposed building is 2-stories and 1,144 sq ft., or 3.5 times as large as the building it will replace. The proposed 25' height will also make this building taller than the other buildings in the neighborhood. The proposed layout of the building also raises another concern on the part of staff. While the applicant proposes a garage/storage/office setup, the floor plan of the second floor (included in your packet) closely resembles a dwelling unit. You can see that the "storage room" has a closet and windows and could just as easily be labeled a "bedroom". The `office/conference room" has a full kitchen setup and could easily be labeled "living room/kitchen" . A bathroom complete with linen closet and bathtub is also shown. Therefore, while the applicant intends to use it in connection with his home occupation, it will conveniently be set up for future use as a dwelling unit, or "alley house." The new code requirements that regulate construction in the NCL zone that went into effect on March 1, 1996 stipulate that a dwelling constructed on the rear portion of a lot can't contain more than 800 square feet of total floor area, including the floor area of unfinished spaces such as garages and storage rooms. If the Board finds a hardship and wants to allow a home occupation use in a new detached building, the Board should consider limiting the size 1) the footprint size of the existing detached building, which is about 16' x 21', or 2) limiting the total square footage to 800 square feet, which would be keeping with the intent of the code to limit the size of "alley houses", keeping in mind that the building floor plan is laid out to resemble a house. Barnes stated the lot was deep, 190' deep. He said the house was small and the applicant uses the house for his home occupation, contracting and remodeling. The new garage would be a two story garage with a floor area of 1144 square feet. Barnes reviewed the home occupation code as it pertained to detached garages (new and existing). Bames stated he was concerned that the new building could be used as a residence in the future and the code for the Eastside/Westside neighborhood does not allow that large of a alley house. size no larger than 800 square feet.) Eckman said the Board has to consider if this is detrimental to the public good, and the Board may want to consider limitations if this appeal is approved. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 8 Ron Biller, owner appeared before the Board. He said the neighbor to the north and he are on a spectic tank, others in the neighborhood are on sewer lines. He said with the new addition, he could tap into the sewer line. He would like to add on to the house eventually. He said the new building would be like a show -home, he would show clients the kind of work he did. He said he was in business for three years and by operating out of the garage, it would be cost effective. He said he recognized the proposed garage could be used as another house. He explained what each room would be used for and said he could change a few things, although some were necessary. He said he would clean up the yard and it would be better for the neighborhood. He said it would be convenient to have his business on this location. He addressed the hardships and said he doesn't want to park on Shields, it is dangerous, he didn't know where the sceptic tank was located, and if he built an addition to the back he would have to take a tree down. He said he had planned a 6/12 pitch roof but was willing to change it if the Board found that he needed to. Breth had some concerns, storage rooms don't have egress windows & closets and offices don't have full baths. Breth asked if the alley was paved, Biller said it was not. Biller said he would not allow this office to be a dwelling unit or rental. He said for tax purposes it would be an advantage to have the building as an office. Huddleson asked Barnes if a home with am attached garage wanted to do this, could they do it without a variance. Barnes said they could add on to the house, use a bedroom as an office, but could not add a kitchen, and added the code states only 5o% of a home can be used as home occupation. No one was present in favor or against this appeal. Shannon said she didn't see a need to exceed the code and could still have a home occupation without asking for a variance. Breth agreed but added the lot was narrow. His concerns were the design (looked like a house) and the amount of square footage of the building. Barnes explained the code, enforcement and punishment if the building were used as a dwelling. Huddleson said he could have a home occupation in the present building, or he could be limited to 800 sq ft if he rebuilt it. Breth stated he thought the size of the proposed building was too big. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 9 Board member Shannon moved to approve Appeal 2168 because of the existing small home with the conditions that the newly constructed building be no larger than 800 square feet, total, and meet all requirements in the NCL zone. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Huddleson, Lieser, Breth, Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. The motion passed. Board member Huddleson was excused. Appeal 2171 305 E Elizabth Street by Mark Gabbert church staff member. approved Section 29-473. The variance would allow a fence to be erected for a child care center outdoor play area to be 4 feet high instead of the required 6' height. The fence will enclose 2875 sq ft to be located on the west side of the building. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: This location is the only place on the property available for play area. The fence code allows only a 4 foot maximum fence height at this location, but the child care center ordinance requires 6 foot high fence. Therefore, the petitioner is in a catch-22 situation. The center hopes to be approved for 20 children. The fence will have landscape screening around the perimeter to meet the playground screening requirements. ----- Staff comments: None Barnes said the front legal property line in along Matthews although the front of the church is on Elizabeth. Barnes said the screening ordinance for fences would be complied with by the proposed landscaping around the fence. Shannon wanted to know if the 6' fence requirement was for safety, Barnes said not really, it was to screen noise, and for aesthetic reasons. Lucia Liley appeared before the Board representing the church. She said over the years the church has tried to develop for the needs of neighborhood as well as the neighbors. She said the site was long and narrow and had a double front side. The church wants to supply a small Christian pre-school with only 20 children. She said if the legal front lot line was really the front lot line, there would be no need for a variance. Breth asked if there was an encroachment issue with the City, Lucia stated an encroachment permit was obtained through the Engineering Department. n Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1996 Page 10 No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Gustafson, said the side yard being front yard is a hardship and he supported the appeal. He added the design fits into neighborhood. Board member Gustafson moved to approve Appeal 2171 for the hardship stated. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Shannon, Felner. Nays: None. The motion passed. Additional Business: Barnes mentioned a memo from City Manager's office saying the mayor wants to get on the Board's calendar for another visit. Barnes said he would arrange a meeting in September or October. The meeting was adjourned. Marry Breth, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator