Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/09/199911 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Bames (221-6760) 11 II Chairperson: William Stockover II Phone: 482-4895 (H) II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 9, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Pawlikowski, Andy Miscio, Steve Remington, William Stockover, David Ayraud, Martin Breth BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 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. It was decided that the approval of the November meeting minutes would be delayed until the January 13, 2000 meeting. 2. APPEAL 2280: -- Approved Address: 300 Peterson Street Petitioner: Kevin Cross, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Backeround: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Olive Street form 15' to 12.5' in order to allow a 10.5' addition to be constructed on the rear of the existing home. • ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 2 The wall of the addition will line up approximately with the existing wall, which is already at 12' 1" from the Olive Street lot line and has been there for the past 100 years. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The owner desires to construct an addition that compliments the existing home and at the same time, maximizes the living space associated with the addition. The addition will be more than 32' from the curb of Olive Street, which results in a setback from the street that is 9' greater than the minimum setback found in newer subdivisions, so the intent of the code is met. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. Property lines from all directions were viewed, including the site of the proposed addition. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Kevin Murray, addressed the Board. Murray is the general contractor overseeing construction of this project. Murray noted that he has a permit for the remodel of the front of the house currently underway and verified that part of the proposed addition would be attached to the shed seen at the rear of the house. The Applicant stated that the proposed two story addition would have the same fagade as the front and sides of the existing home including keeping the dormers. Murray said that if he had to maintained the required 15' setback, there would be a 3.5' jog in the house resulting in an odd looking structure. Ayraud asked when the current owners had purchased the home. Murray replied that the home was purchased in July of this year as a duplex and is now being remodeled into a single family dwelling. Remington asked Murray if materials used for the addition would match the existing house. Murray responded that the original home is brick, but the remodel will be frame and synthetic stucco, adding that the remodeling design will be in keeping with the era of the original home construction. Ayraud asked Barnes when the zoning had been changed requiring the 15'setback. Barnes replied that the 15' setback requirement has been in effect since at least 1965, adding that on corner lots in the older parts of town, there are quite a few homes that are non -complying with setbacks that have been around for about the last 30 years. Ayraud asked Barnes if it was the intent of the City Council that any new construction be setback 15'. Barnes said there was a comprehensive rezoning in 1997 when they adopted a new code. The previous code change was 1965 and at that time the code was laid out to address more urban type of subdivisions with wider lots, right of way lines and the property lines were closer to the curb than in the older parts of town. Public Participation: • • ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 3 Marla Lascas, addressed the Board. Lascas is the owner of the property at 300 Peterson Street. Lascas was in support of this variance. Ayraud asked Lascas if she was aware of the zoning setback requirements when she purchased the home. Lascas replied she was not. Miscio questioned Lascas if she would be living in the house herself. Lascas responded that she would be living there. Board Discussion: Breth stated that this is a typical Old Town lot, wherein the right of way on Olive St. is wider than what you would find in a normal subdivision and because of this, the curb is quite a distance away from the side of the house. Breth commented that unless the street department plans on making a four lane street through Olive St, the intent of the code would still be met, going from property line to the house. Breth mentioned that if the home were in a newer subdivision, a street would be closer and this property has a large parkway area in front and on the side yard. Ayraud agreed, but questioned the fact that the home was purchased in July of this year and the setbacks have been in place since 1965. Ayraud felt that the 15 foot setback should not have been a surprise. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal #2280 based on the hardship stated. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski Nays: None Appeal #2280 was approved. 4. APPEAL 2279: -- Approved Address: 937 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Bob Long, Owner Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1) and 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ration from 3:1 to 2.23:1 in order to allow a 1 '/2 to 2 story addition on the back of the home and a new detached garage along the alley. The variance would also reduce the required side yard setback on the west side from 7' to 5' in order to allow the side walls of the dormer addition to be 22' tall at the ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 4 peak instead of 18' tall. This variance was originally heard at the November 10, 1999 meeting, but was tabled to December 9. 1999 in order to allow the applicant time to discuss his plans with the neighbors. The applicant has subsequently revised his plans. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is narrow, only 40'. The house is small, only 852 sq. ft. and there is no garage. The proposed height of the home will be comparable to the height of the neighboring homes. Staff Comments: Barnes commented that a letter was received by the Building and Zoning Department in favor of this appeal. The letter was read by Sandy Lindell. Barnes commented that at the previous hearing, several neighbors voiced their concerns in opposition to this appeal. For this reason, the appeal was tabled in hopes that the Applicant may possibly reconsider some of his proposals and to talk to neighbors as well. The Applicant has re -submitted some new information and the building has been re -designed. The floor area that was previously proposed resulted in 2720 sq. feet, the re -submitted proposal consists of 2, 516 sq. feet. The addition has been reduced in size, but the size of the garage has been increased slightly, the now proposed area of the garage is 672 sq. feet. Another issue at the past meeting was that the proposed addition, rather than line up with both of the side existing walls, was going to be bumped out to the east about 6'. Due to the height of the proposed addition, a variance was requested not only on the lot area to floor area ratio, but also on reducing both the west and the east side yard setbacks, it has now been redesigned so that both the east and west sides of the addition line up with the existing east and west walls. No longer is a variance requested on a side yard setback on the east because that now complies at an 11' setback. However, a variance request is still in order for the west setback. Jenny Nuckols presented slides pertinent to this appeal. Slides were seen of the property lines from all directions. Nuckols showed slides of the area of the proposed garage addition and the neighbor's existing garages were viewed. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Bob Long, addressed the Board. Long mentioned that the width of the addition had been reduced to mitigate the encroachment on the east property line. The overall square footage had been reduced. Long referred to the site plan included in the Board's information, noting that there is a 30" diameter Elm that will help block the view from the neighbor to the east. Long stated that he had researched county records of properties that had similar additions to the one he proposed in his neighborhood. Long referred to a diagram that he devised of the location of these properties, noting the floor to lot ratios of each. Long noted some of the garage additions on his diagram and how some of them had lofts above the garage, which could be considered another living area. Long believed several homes that have additions in the back of their houses that could readily be converted to living units and it was his understanding that these units were not to be used as rentals. ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 5 Long addressed issues that were brought up at the previous meeting regarding the City Plan and the East/West Neighborhood Plan. Long stated that he had reviewed these documents and that the City Plan mentioned wanting to encourage diverse residential uses, mixed use of housing types, all income levels, families, age groups, rental properties and levels. One of the concerns of the City Plan was that the area of his neighborhood was being used more for rentals and they wanted to encourage returning some single family homes in the area. Long stated that if that is not the way the area is going, then he doesn't want to be associated with it anyway. Long said that City Plan discussed infill development, which talked about the older properties and how there would be some redevelopment of underutilized properties in the neighborhood. They defined underutilized properties as having a relatively low level of economic value of improvement compared to the underlying land values, where the land is capable of supporting additional development. Long believes this is true in his case, in that the home that he bought was less than 700 square feet and he paid what he feels was a below market price of $140,000. Long believes his design fits with the intent of the City Plan. Long stated that he feels what he is proposing with his addition is what he thought would be the best intention of the East/West plan for this area. Remington asked the Applicant how he came up with the list of comparable information. Long replied that he just drove around and if he saw something that looked like an addition, he would call Peter Barnes and ask him when the addition was done. After checking with the County Assessor, he compiled the rest of the information. Public Participation: Connie Werner, addressed the Board to oppose the variance request. Werner resides at 935 W. Oak St, the property due east of the Applicant's. Werner stated that had Long discussed his plans with her, she feels she may not have had to appear here. Werner said she talked to neighbors to get their perspective on the project. She said that they do want to see the neighborhood maintained and want to see it develop in a way that is compatible, but at the same time, show a real care for it. Werner stated that she believes Long had good intentions when starting this project. Werner said questions still remained about the ordinance that was enacted in 1997. Werner stated that although her addition was completed in 1991, she received a variance in 1990. Since that time, the zoning codes have changed and with the current zoning, she would not have needed to ask for a variance. Where she needed a setback of 12 feet for her garage then, the requirement now is only for 5 feet. Werner expressed disdain that she could not regain that extra square footage now for her back yard and the loss of her open space is something that is one of her main concerns. • zBA December 9, 1999 Page 6 Werner commented that Long had not previously tried to contact her until late last night and they could not connect, although she had been home the last 4 weeks since the last meeting and he had time to come and discuss his plans with her. Werner did give Long credit for altering the architectural design and addressing the concerns she had with the roof line of the previous design and realizing with the many rental properties in the area, believes it is beneficial to have Long upgrading his property. Werner wanted to bring up the fact that Long is not undertaking a small addition, it will be almost a 200% increase in his property. Werner noted that Long had made some reference to her addition and the square footage of the loft area. She said her addition has a loft with a pull down stair for some storage, but half of the space in the loft does not have a floor, so she is not sure how her square footage is figured. Werner commented that it was her understanding the intention of the NCL plan was to protect the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single family dwellings. She said she bought her home there because it was a developed area and thought she knew what she was getting into. Werner remarked that the garage Long proposes is exactly the same size as his upstairs addition, 672 sq. feet, she thinks this is pretty dramatic as he is not replacing an existing structure. Werner stated that for her variance, she had an existing structure of 150 sq. ft. that was replaced with her garage. Werner mentioned that the garage Long is proposing is 24 ft. x 28 ft., which is beyond the size of a double car garage and the majority of garages in the neighborhood that have a double car garage are 22 x 24. Werner questioned what the hardship was for this appeal and that Long, being an assessor, should have known after just recently purchasing the home, that there were new zoning rules for this community. Werner said that the height of the Long project is extremely high, although she does not have a problem with the height even if it means changing the front of the house. Werner said she wanted it on record that the resident who owns and lives in the home at 935 W. Oak Street opposes the granting of this variance. Ayraud asked Werner what the current side setbacks were on her property. Werner responded that according to her plans, the setback is 4.9, assuming this was from a survey, although according to her survey, it shows the north to south lot length as 137.5 feet and she believes the standard is 140 feet. Werner did not know if Long property had another 2.5 foot greater length than hers. According to Werner, her site plan has her house at 4.6 feet at one end and 4.9 feet at the other end to the west. Werner stated that on the east side, the front of her home is 11.2 feet from the neighbor and 11 feet at the back of the house. Regarding her garage, Werner said she had asked for a variance to allow a 2 foot setback, which is the same as what the existing shed that she replaced was set at. Werner noted that her lot has a slight grade and when she went to put in the foundation for the garage it had to build up the front due to the drainage issue and therefore appears somewhat higher. Barnes wanted to clarify some points regarding Werner's garage. Barnes noted that a variance was granted in 1990 to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet. The old shed on the Werner property was at a 6" setback. A variance was also approved to reduce the rear setback of the garage to the rear lot line along the alley from 15 feet to 8 feet and at the time the variance was granted, the Code required a 15 foot rear setback. Since 1990, the Code has been amended to require only a 5 foot setback along an alley in this neighborhood. ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 7 Pawlikowski asked Werner what the dimensions of her garage were. Werner responded that it was 16' x 22' and at the highest point, her garage is 19 feet. Ayraud wanted to clarify if the Applicant was asking for a variance for a 5 foot setback for just the garage. Werner responded that it was on the west side of the Long home that was asking for the 5 foot variance, a setback variance for the garage is not needed. Board Discussion: Ayraud asked Barnes for clarification on the setback requirement changes that took place in 1997. Barnes stated that in 1997, the City adopted a new Code and this zone, the NCL, was one of five zones that were rolled over from the old Code to the new Code. The NCL requirements are the same now as they were prior to 1997. What changed in 1996, with the Eastside/Westside code changes, were the setback requirements along alleys and side yard requirements based on the height of the building. Prior to 1996, it was a 5 foot side yard setback for a single family regardless of the height. In 1996 the Code was changed to a 5 foot setback requirement for the first 18 feet of wall height and an additional 1 foot of setback for every 2 feet of building wall height. Barnes noted that it is actually the proposed dormer to the west that exceeds the 18 feet and requires the setback requirement being greater than 5 feet. Barnes commented that another thing that changed in 1996 was how floor area was calculated to arrive at the lot to floor area ratio. In 1996 it was changed to include garages, prior to that, garages did not count as floor area, now garages are part of that 3:1 lot area/floor area calculation. Stockover clarified that what the Board was really hearing was two issues; one for the dormer setback and the other was a request for more floor space than what was allowed. Barnes confirmed that was correct. Barnes stated that on a 5,600 square foot lot, 1,800 square foot of floor area was allowed for the 3:1 ratio. The proposal presented by Long has the total floor area of the home at 1,844 square feet and the garage adding another 672 square feet. Barnes commented that Long had alluded to the property at 938 W. Oak Street in his comparable sheet submitted to the Board, the permit for that property had been issued in 1995, prior to the 3:1 ratio requirements. Barnes mentioned that if you were to subtract the garage from that property, it would be in compliance and many of the others on the comparable sheet pre -dated the time when the Code started counting garages. Breth commented that the requirement now including garages in the floor area would hinder those that have small lots. Barnes replied that people would need to request a variance from the Board if their desired renovations put them over the required ratio, which would put the Board in the position of deciding if what the applicant is asking for is reasonable. Ayraud questioned Barnes if the reason garages were included in the floor to lot ratio was because the City wanted to limit the amount of building that was on a property, or because people were converting the buildings for other people to live in. Barnes stated that prior to 1991 when the NCL district was adopted, there would not have been enough lot area under that Code to allow a second home to be built on these lots, they are too small. Because the character of the old neighborhoods included many detached buildings, when the floor area of • ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 8 garages was not included, there was some concern for the potential of numerous outbuildings or accessory buildings being placed on these small, narrow properties. It is only in the zones that are in the old East/West neighborhoods that include the floor area of garages or detached buildings. Ayraud asked the Applicant if the construction of the garage was all to be on one floor. Long stated that the garage is to be all on one floor and would probably have a steep pitch that would be in character of the neighborhood, but would not have any living area above. Ayraud asked Long when he revised his plans for this appeal why he decide to enlarge the garage from the original square footage. Long replied that after reviewing some of the properties in the neighborhood he realized that they had larger garages similar to the size he really wanted. Long also desired to be able to have room for his lawnmower, bikes etc. Remington asked Long why he did not have any dialog with Werner regarding the variance. Long stated that he had talked to some of the neighbors, but had just been missing contact with Werner and had also been taking care of a sick child that had occupied much of his time. Long commented that he had a hard time getting the phone number of Werner, and was not sure he was leaving a message at the right number. Long addressed some of the concerns brought up by Werner, commenting that he believed his garage would be approximately the same height as his neighbor to the west. Long stated that in reference to his garage setbacks, he just wanted to be able to get his vehicles in back as opposed to on the street. Stockover addressed the issue of the dormers and the variance request on the 5 foot setback. The consensus by the Board was that the 5 foot setback on the dormer to the west was not a big concern. Stockover asked the Board to address the issue of the building square footage. Breth stated that the changes in the architectural design for the home had taken care of many of the issues there and he agreed an increase in the square footage of the garage was merited. Breth commented that he would rather see items such as lawn mowers, bikes etc. stored out of sight. There was discussion by the Board regarding the garage size and that if this variance were to be granted, the addition would be at the upper limit of those properties that have larger buildings. The Board expressed some desire to have more information on the comparable garage square footages noted on the list Long provided. Ayraud expressed his concerns with the square footage issue. He stated that after receiving information that the proposed garage is all on one floor and its size was being compared to other garages that have loft or storage areas above them which were included in their square footage, it gives a misleading perception of the actual square footages. Barnes verified that the loft areas are counted in the square footage of the detached garages. Barnes referred Werner's garage footprint, mentioning that it was somewhere around 300 square feet and what is noted as some of the comparable buildings on Mr. Long's chart are about 705 square feet. Not having specifics on how much area is loft on some of the comparable properties, Barnes commented that it is difficult to determine on how much actual lot is being covered. ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 9 Stockover asked the Applicant if he could move the garage farther towards the back of the property line, giving the backyard more open area. Long responded that he intentionally wanted more space from the garage to the alley so he would have more room to drop people off without having to open the garage door in back. Long noted that his garage would line up with the garage of the property to the west. Stockover asked Werner to address the Board on her concerns regarding the location of the proposed garage. Werner commented that shading would occur on her property as a result of the garage and there would be approximately 5 feet of wall that would hit her in the face when she entered her backyard. Werner noted that a standard garage was 22' x 24' and the majority of 2 car garages are those dimensions, so she does not have a problem with a garage of that size. Ayraud made a motion to approve the setback variance from 7' to 5' for Appeal #2279 due to a narrow lot hardship. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Pawlikowski Nays: Remington The first portion of Appeal #2279 was approved. Stockover commented that regarding the square footage issue, perhaps the Long property was not large enough to accommodate the needs of a family this size. Stockover noted that Long mentioned he had teenagers, which could possibly result in more than just two cars being used by the family. Stockover agreed with an earlier comment regarding the advantages of having room to put things away in a garage. Stockover stated he had hopes the Applicant and his neighbors might come to a mutual agreement on the concerns of the garage, but it did not appear that would be happening. Long addressed the Board, commenting that he was open to making some adjustments with the garage, possibly moving it back somewhat but still allowing for some parallel parking. Werner commented that her worst fear by allowing 12 feet in the back of the garage was that it would just become an additional parking area. Werner said it is not uncommon for people to have a concrete pad for additional cars to park and she is not opposed to that. There was some discussion on the allowable setbacks. Barnes stated that there was a 5 foot minimum setback at the rear of the property and Werner's garage was setback at 8 feet, which is the minimum amount required for parallel parking. Barnes commented that with a 12 foot setback, it could possibly encourage people not to park parallel. Ayraud commented that the Board had basically agreed to a size for the garage and it would be meeting the setback requirements, now questions were arising on where on the lot the garage could be built, even though they have already met the setback requirements. • • ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 10 Breth mentioned that he was in favor of having cars parked in the back of properties, getting them off the street and helping with parking congestion on the streets. Werner brought up the argument that having cars parked in an alley might impede access for emergency vehicles. Ayraud made a motion to approve the remainder of Appeal #2279 for the garage addition, at the proposed location, but restricting the size to 22 feet x 24 feet. After computing the calculations, this approval would result in a variance on the lot area to floor area ratio. The motion was amended to include the condition that construction was to be done as per the architectural design submitted. Pawlikowski seconded the motion. There was some discussion by the Board that if the Applicant could possibly erect some smaller storage sheds to accommodate garden equipment etc. Barnes mentioned that if detached sheds are kept under 120 square feet and a height of no more than 8 feet, they were not regulated. This could result in multiple storage sheds on the same site. There was some discussion if the best option in this case would be to allow a larger garage that would have ample storage, or to restrict the garage size and possibly have several small sheds to take care of other storage needs. Werner was asked by the Board if given those options, which would she rather view from her property. Werner stated that she would like to see a 22' x 24' garage, setback to either the 5' or 8' rear setback line, but she would not have a problem with a storage shed. There was Board discussion about either moving the garage south 4 feet, or requiring that the size reduction come from the north end of the garage, which would result in the same effect as moving the garage 4 feet south. However, the Board had a problem with dictating location and proceeded to vote on Ayraud's motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Breth, Pawlikowski Nays: Stockover, Remington Barnes summarized the decision of the Board, explaining that the variance for the lot area/floor area calculation for Appeal #2279 was approved with the condition that the size of the garage be no more than 22' x 24', resulting in a lot area to floor area ratio of 2.36 to 1 and the setback on the west lot line to 5' was approved. The variances were also conditioned on the architectural design of the building be as submitted. Appeal #2279 was approved. Barnes suggested that the Applicant work together with his neighbors to determine where the 4 feet created from downsizing the garage square footage be utilized. 5. APPEAL 2281: --Approved Address: 121 Buckingham and 235 2"d Street Petitioner: Guadalupe, Helen and Yolanda Rodriguez, Owners ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 11 Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 sq. ft. to 4,050 sq. ft. for the home at 121 Buckingham Street, and from 6,000 sq. ft. to 4,050 sq. ft. for the home at 235 2"d Street. The variance is requested in order to allow the existing 8,100 sq. ft. lot which contains both homes to be split into two separate lots. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The Board was directed to refer to the letter submitted by the Applicant for the Petitioner's Statement of Hardship. It was also noted that both of the homes have their own separate utility services. Staff Comments: Barnes commented that regarding this Appeal, if the two homes were not already there, the Board would normally not grant this type of variance due to the lack of hardship and the precedent that would be set. However, this situation is somewhat unique, since the two homes already exist and the creation of a new lot line to separate the properties is something that should have no impact on the neighborhood. Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. Slides were viewed of both properties from all directions, singularly and also of the two properties together. Nuckols noted the slide showing where the proposed new property line would be located. Ayraud questioned Staff on when the 6,000 sq. ft. requirement was imposed. Barnes responded it was in 1965 that the 6,000 sq. ft. requirement was enacted, however, until sometime in the 1980's, there was a built-in provision in the Code that allowed lots platted prior to 1965 to qualify for an automatic one-third reduction in lot area and lot width. Barnes added that normally where you would need 12,000 sq. ft. of lot area to have two houses, this property qualified under that older code provision wherein the 12,000 sq. ft. requirement automatically was reduced to 8,000 sq. ft. Barnes noted that the Applicant's lot was 8,100 sq. ft. and the lot reduction had been done prior to the elimination of this code provision later in the 1980's. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Helen Rodriguez, addressed the Board. Rodriguez stated that she and her husband have owned the property since 1957 and had lived there raising their children until 1977 when they purchased another home. Rodriguez said her children have since been living in the two homes. Rodriguez stated that she is now retired and desires to sell the property and believes it would be easier to sell if the homes were split, each with its own lot. The Applicant commented that she has had several inquiries by prospective purchasers, but these buyers only wanted to buy one home and couldn't afford to purchase both. Rodriguez zBA December 9, 1999 Page 12 remarked that she could sell the property to investors to be used as rentals, but knowing the lack of affordable housing, would prefer they be bought as owner occupied homes. Rodriguez noted that the homes are located on a corner lot and believes there would be adequate parking for either home. Rodriguez commented that her daughter may remain living in the home towards the rear of the lot and could remove the privacy fence for more parking in that area. The Applicant stated that when they originally purchased the property, the building in the back was unfinished and was used for storage until they remodeled it into a home. Public Participation: Yolanda Rodriguez, addressed the Board. Yolanda Rodriguez stated that she lives at 235 2nd Street, the home to the rear of the property. Yolanda Rodriguez commented that she helps her parents keep the property maintained and she is in support of splitting the property. Board Discussion: Breth stated that he supports splitting this property, as it could create viable, affordable housing as opposed to being purchased by an investor and used as rental property. Miscio questioned if the lot were split, would there be a possibility of a garage being added to either lot. Barnes responded that in this zone, the floor areas of garages are not counted and as long as the garages met the required setbacks it could be done. Remington asked Barnes if there would be room to put a garage after the lot was split. Barnes replied that the home at 235 2nd Street has 38 feet from the house to the property line, which would require a 5' setback. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal #2281 for the hardship stated. Remington seconded the motion. Miscio questioned if the line where the Applicant was asking for the lot to be split is the best location, or would it be more beneficial to create the split at another location on the lot allowing for more area if a garage addition was desired. Barnes pointed out that if the lot line were moved closer to the home at 235 2nd Street to allow room for a garage on 121 Buckingham Street, the lot line between the two lots would then become the rear property line and having that rear property line not adjoining an alley, they would have to adhere to a 15' setback from the rear which could result in a need for a variance for a garage addition. There was some discussion by the Board and the Applicant if it would be prudent to table this Appeal and give the Applicants more time to consider the best location for the lot split. The Board determined they would vote on the variance requested today, with the allowance that the Applicant could return with another variance request if they decide the lot line placement is not conducive to their needs. Vote: ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 13 Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski Nays: None Appeal 2281 was approved. 6. APPEAL 2282: -- Approved Address: 833 Napa Valley Drive Petitioner: Jason Baumgamer of Baumgarner Custom Homes, Owner Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(b) and 4.3(D)(2)(c) Background: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Roma Valley Drive from 20' to Wand would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15' to 6' in order to allow a new home to be constructed on this corner lot. The home will face Napa Valley Drive, which will function as the actual front lot line, but Roma Valley Drive is the legal front lot line regardless of which way the home faces; therefore, the need of a variance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a comer lot, wherein the home should front on the legal side lot line due to the shape of the lot and the grading of the lot. The orientation is the most practical, but it conflicts with the definition of front and rear lot lines. The proposed placement of the home complies with the front, rear and side setbacks that would apply if Napa Valley were actually the legal front lot line. Staff Comments: Barnes commented that this variance addresses a typical corner lot situation that commonly arises where the legal front lot line is the shortest of the two street frontages and the other street property line becomes the side. Barnes noted that the Applicant will address the reasons why he believes the house needs to be oriented to Napa Valley Drive which is the legal side yard, but if Napa Valley Drive was the front lot line, the house would comply with all the required setbacks. Nuckols presented slides pertinent to the Appeal. Nuckols instructed the Board to refer to their site plan in conjunction to her slides to obtain a better understanding of the plot layout. Slides were shown of both Napa Valley Drive and Roma Valley Drive in relationship to the Applicant's lot, the legal front property line and side property line. Slides were viewed of the lot in all directions and the direction the proposed home would face if this variance were approved. Applicant Participation: ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 14 Jason Baumgamer, addressed the Board. Baumgamer stated that the house he desires to build on this lot was designed on the lot with Napa Valley Drive being what he considered, the front of the lot, meeting the setback requirements if that were the legal front lot line. Baumgamer stated that he was not aware of the City determination between what was legal and actual. Baumgamer commented that because of the grading and shape of the lot, it is the most practical to put the house on the lot as he had it designed. The Applicant proceeded to outline the requirements from the Stormwater Department including that the top of the foundation of the house be 29.8 feet. Baumgamer stated that the back property pins were at roughly 24 feet, so to face the house towards Roma Valley would cause the foundation to be quite high in relationship to the low property. Baumgamer commented that he was issued two addresses for this corner lot and assumed that he could face the house in either direction. Baumgamer referred to the grading plan submitted to the Board. Baumgamer noted that in the topography of the lot, the corner of Napa Valley Dr. and Roma Valley Dr. the pins are set at 23.52 and 23.19 and at the west side of the lot, the pins are placed at 24.12 and 24.98. In the grading plan, it was required that he put the driveway on the high side of the lot, which in his opinion would be the northeast corner where the pins are 27.69 and would require a much shallower grade driveway as opposed to placing it out on Roma Valley Drive where the foundation would be at 29.8 and the street at approximately at 23. Public Participation: None Board Discussion: Ayraud questioned Staff if it was the City that determined the legal front and side lot lines of a property. Barnes responded that City Code determines the legal front lot line by definition. Barnes explained that on a corner lot, the legal front lot line is defined as the shortest of the two street frontages. Ayraud asked if it were possible for the Board to grant a variance on that definition. Barnes replied that there was no governing body that could grant a variance on a definition. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal#2282 due to the topography of the lot and for the hardship stated. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski Nays: None Appeal 2282 was approved. 7. APPEAL 2283: -- Approved Address: 502 West Laurel Street Petitioner: Joe Ferrando, Community Corrections Director for Larimer County Zone: NCB E ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 15 Section: 3.2.2(K)(1)(d) David Ayraud excused himself from hearing Appeal 42282 due to a conflict of interest. Background: The variance would reduce the required number of parking spaces from 42 spaces to 24 spaces in order to allow 18 additional residents to be housed in the Larimer County Community Corrections Department's residential halfway house facility. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The Board was instructed to refer to the letter submitted by the Applicant for the Petitioner's Statement of Hardship. Staff Comments: Nuckols presented slides pertinent to this Appeal. Slides were seen of the front of the correctional facility, the cross street where the parking lot is accessed from the rear of the building. Referring to the submitted site plan, Nuckols noted the existing 18 parking spaces to the north of the building. The fence line was shown that separates the correctional facility from the parking lot of Woody's Wood -fired Pizza, in addition to the parking spaces allocated to the correctional facility by Woody's. Applicant Participation: Joe Ferrando, addressed the Board. Ferrando stated that the Larimer County Attorney's Office informed him that not all County facilities fall under the City Land Use Code, but the Larimer County Community Corrections Department wanted to submit this application to be in good faith with the City and also to maintain good relations with neighbors of the facility. Ferrando commented that Woody's actually offered 6 of their parking spaces for use by the County. Ferrando stated that due to the uniqueness of their correctional facility, they have total control of how many of the facility residents drive and very few of them actually have driving privileges. Due to this fact, Ferrando said the parking spaces for the residents that they will be adding really are not an issue. Ferrando commented that the four staff members they would be adding to the facility will have their working hours spread out over a 24 hour period, seven days a week and therefore, they do not foresee a parking problem. Remington questioned the Applicant how many of the facility staff were present at any one time. Ferrando replied the busiest time of the day would be between 4:00 p.m and 7:00 p.m., at which time they would have eleven staff present. Ferrando noted that with the 18 beds they intend on adding, the staff would total twelve for that same period of time. Remington asked for clarification on the amount of parking spaces that would be available for staff. Ferrando replied that they would have 24 spaces available for staff and residents including the 6 spaces allocated by Woody's. Remington questioned the Applicant if he felt the 13 spaces available after staff parking would be enough to cover resident parking. Ferrando zBA December 9, 1999 Page 16 responded that the 13 spaces would be more than adequate, due to the fact that at this time, the facility has only 3 of the 69 residents allowed to have a vehicle on the property and this amount could be lowered if needed. City Attorney, Paul Eckman, commented that after reviewing the letter from Woody's Wood - fired Pizza, he did not feel the letter alone was sufficient for the Board to rely on for the additional parking spaces. Eckman stated that the letter is not an easement and could be considered a license that could be revoked at any time. Miscio asked Ferrando what prompted Woody's to offer the County the use of their 6 parking spaces. Ferrando replied that the County approached Woody's, explaining that they would be increasing their bed space at the facility and parking could be an issue. Ferrando added that the County had approached Woody's with the idea of leasing the parking spaces, but Woody's responded they had an abundance of parking and offered the spaces at no charge. Miscio questioned whether the County might enter into a lease agreement with Woody's for a token sum of $1, possibly giving them the legal right to use the spaces. Pawlikowski asked Ferrando how the correctional facility was going to accommodate the 18 beds they would be adding. Ferrando replied that the facility would be adding a second story to their existing building to accommodate for the bed space, expanding the side of the building that would be facing the parking lot. Public Participation: Sheron Winfry, addressed the Board. Winfry resides at 315 West Oak St. Winfry stated that she is in support of this Appeal. Winfry commented that as a frequent visitor to the halfway house, she could affirm that parking in the facility lot is not an issue. Winfiy commented that she believed the 18 parking spaces that were approved for the halfway house had been grandfathered in under a previous provision. She was also doubtful that the facility would need the additional 6 spaces allocated by Woody's. Eckman commented on the issue of a lease with Woody's. Eckman cautioned relying on a lease agreement, unless it was a very long term lease, or if a specific length of time the facility would be using the building could be determined, then an irrevocable lease could be structured for that term. It was Eckman's opinion that a deed of an easement, terminating at such time the County ceased to operate the halfway house at this location, would be preferable over a lease. Board Discussion: Remington asked for clarification on if the variance request that was before the Board was requesting a reduction in required parking spaces from 42 to 24, or because the 6 spaces from Woody's are yet to be confirmed, is the Board to contemplate approving the variance for 18 spaces. If the Board were to approve the request for 24 spaces, would that in turn require a document securing the 6 spaces from Woody's. ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 17 Eckman commented that based on the documentation provided by Woody's, the Board could not consider those as viable. Eckman suggested that the Board could consider tabling the appeal for 24 spaces until a deed of easement could be obtained, or the Board could reduce the amount of required spaces and make a determination on the 18 spaces. Barnes mentioned that if the Board would feel more comfortable with the 24 spaces and were inclined to grant the variance, a condition could be attached wherein the County presented the City with the required documentation for the 6 spaces prior to granting a building permit for their addition. If they could not obtain that documentation, then the County would need to have the variance heard again. Miscio commented that it appears that the 18 spaces would be adequate and if the facility would remain in its current use and the Board could address the parking issue if at some time the use changed. Eckman reiterated that the Applicant had mentioned that the facility could dictate that no residents be allowed vehicles if necessary. It appears that there is an uncertain number of those facility residents that can own a vehicle and the variance could be conditioned upon no inmate vehicles being allowed, which would alleviate the concern of obtaining the spaces at Woody's. There was Board discussion on whether to place a condition on the variance requiring that the County not issue residents more parking permits than available spaces. It appeared that even if the Board were to cap the amount of resident vehicles at 6 and keeping a full staff, they still would have adequate parking based on the existing 18 spaces. Breth questioned the Applicant if facility residents were allowed visitors and if so, how that would affect the parking situation. Ferrando responded that the inmates are allowed visitors from the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with weekend visitation hours from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Ferrando stated that weekend staff consists of no more than 4 members at any given time with the shifts going down to one staff member overnight. Ferrando commented that there have been no issues with parking for visitors. Breth was in agreement that 18 spaces, if approved would be adequate, but would like to see a limitation placed on the approval of the variance stating that it only be attached to this facility. Stockover questioned whether the Board could put a cap on the amount of spaces allowed for residents and limit the variance to a structure that caters to people without cars. Barnes commented that the Board could grant variances based on uniqueness of a property. Barnes said what made this property unique was the makeup of the population that is housed there, as the vast majority are not allowed to drive and the Board could include the condition that none of them drive. Barnes commented that should the use change, it would be a completely different situation. ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 18 Eckman questioned the Applicant how the facility determines if a resident can own a vehicle. Ferrando replied the decision vanes, many of the residents do not have valid driver's licenses, so are automatically unable to drive. Ferrando elaborated that the programs structure is such, that residents need to work their way through the program and get a certain amount of savings in their account in order to move out. Ferrando said that when a resident is paying for insurance etc. for a car, it slows them down in obtaining that goal. Another reason the amount of driving residents is limited is because the County monitors the movement within the community of all the clients. Ferrando commented that they only have 3 out of the 69 residents allowed to drive and they are their overachieving clientele with good paying jobs, a good driving history and have earned the privilege. Ferrando stated that residents usually are not granted the driving privilege, do not receive it until about a month before they leave the facility, so they are not driving the entire time they are there. Eckman asked a theoretical question of Ferrando, that if the amount of driving residents could be out of the County's control, with the demographics of a group of residents at any given time that have valid licenses and good paying jobs. Ferrando said the program has full authority and can dictate who has driving privileges. There was discussion on the requirements that determined parking spaces. Barnes stated that it was required to have one space per two beds and one space per two employees. Barnes mentioned that the facility did not have full staff at all times. Stockover pondered the idea of granting a variance with a blanket cap stating that at any given time, if the employee situation goes up or down they could not exceed an employee/driver ratio over 2:1. Remington asked the Applicant if the Board capped the resident parking at 6, would that meet their programs needs. Ferrando replied that a cap at 6 spaces would not impact their program at all. Miscio liked the idea that overachievers are rewarded and did not want to limit that, if there were 9 overachievers that earned the right to have a car and employees are not using all the parking, then they should be able to use those spaces. Breth said if there was enough parking for employees and visitors now, if their program is successful enough that they need more spaces for residents, they could self regulate themselves and try to obtain the lease with Woody's. Barnes commented that it appeared visiting hours coincided with when CSU classes were not predominantly occurring. Barnes mentioned that the Code does not provide for visitor parking. Stockover wanted to know if the Board would be at risk of setting a precedent allowing self government. Remington commented that this facility is a unique use here and would not be treated the same way as if it were an apartment manager saying he was going to manage the amount of cars. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal #2283 for thel8 parking spaces for the hardship of a unique property, with the condition of approval be for the present use of the • • ZBA December 9, 1999 Page 19 facility. The motion was amended to limit the number of parking spaces available for facility clients not to exceed six. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Breth, Remington, Pawlikowski Nays: None Appeal #2283 was approved. Other Business: Barnes presented the Board members with a list of dates for ZBA meetings for the calendar year of 2000. Meeting adjourned at 11:23 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator