Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/10/2005FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — November 10, 2006 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) (Chairperson: Dwight Hall (Phone: (H) 224-4029 1 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 10, 2005 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Donahue Dana McBride Andy Miscio STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support for the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 13, 2005. Daggett seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO 2531 - Approved with Condition Address: 2838 W. Elizabeth Street Petitioner. Michael & Sandra Hanna Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D) (5) Background: The variance would allow the existing 1600 square foot detached garage to be increased in size to 2040 square feet. Specifically, the maximum size allowed for detached accessory buildings is 800 square feet. The existing garage is already nonconforming since it exceeds the maximum square footage allowed. The request is to allow a 22' x 20' addition onto the west side of the existing building. The addition will comply with all setback requirements. ZBA November 10, 2005 — Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing garage door access is located directly behind the house. The access to the garage is an asphalt driveway. The owners would like to remove the driveway and recapture some backyard, alleviating an existing drainage and ponding issue. The addition will be the actual garage parking area of the -building, and will allow a more direct access driveway that does not go behind the house. The lot is 1.06 acres. The intent of the 800 square foot size limit for detached buildings Is to limit the amount of building coverage on average size lots of less than 10,000 square feet. Since this lot is much larger, the intent of the code is met. Additionally, the plan promotes the purpose of the standard equally well as a plan that would propose a 440 square foot detached garage.. Staff Comments: The Board has heard several requests to allow large accessory buildings on larger than normal lots and has approved those requests. This is similar to those previous requests. The 2040 sq. ft. building on this size lot covers 4.4% of the lot, whereas an 800 sq. ft. building on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot (a scenario for which the code regulation is meant to address) covers 8% of the lot. Therefore, the proposal promotes the purpose and intent of the standard to limit the amount of building coverage on a lot. The area is very wooded and setbacks are not an issue. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The lot is 1.06 acres. The intent of the 800 square foot size limit for detached buildings is to limit the amount of building coverage on average size lots of less than 10,000 square feet. Since this lot is much larger, the intent of the code is met. Applicant Participation: Hanna looked at other places to put a detached building but because they would need to cut trees, add concrete, and add 4 walls unlike the proposal where only 3 walls will be required; they would like to proceed with the current proposal. They will go from using the existing tin wall to adding siding similar to their home. Hall wondered how structurally sound the current structure is. Hanna noted the current structure is all 3x6 construction. Board Discussion: Dickson favored the request because the intent of the 800 square foot size limit for detached buildings is to limit the amount of building coverage on average size lots of less than 10,000 square feet. This lot is four times larger. Pisula concurred and asked if they could consider asking for a covenant that precluded a subsequent development of the property. Barnes said yes, the Board is within their authority to approve with that condition. Hall asked the property owners if they would be agreeable to that condition. They responded yes. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal 2531 for the following reasons: not detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard. The standard is to have secondary building not overwhelm the neighborhood's light and open space. This type of property, is not why the 800 square foot rule was designed. The approval is conditioned on this lot not being subdivided. Pisula seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula Nays: None ZBA November 10, 2005 — Page 3 4. APPEAL NO 2532 - Denied Address: 3816 Redwing Road Petitioner: Chris Lockard Zone: R-L Section: 4.3(D)(2)(B) Background: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20' to 10' in order to allow the recently constructed 20' by 18' carport to remain in Its current location. Hardship: The original attached garage area had already been converted into living space at the time the present owners purchased the house. The house was originally built with a 30' setback. The tenant feels he needs the 20 ' depth carport in order to store and work on his vehicles since the original garage had been converted. Staff Comments: This would appear to be a self-imposed hardship. Staff Presentation: Barnes read a letter from a neighbor opposed to granting the variance. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. A building permit Is needed for the construction of this type of structure —it would ensure that the structure can handle snow and wind. It also would regulate requirements for anchoring it. The tenant did not get a building permit prior to its construction. Applicant Participation: Lockard was unaware that a permit was needed and since learning that he's consulted with a certified engineer (to understand how to make the structure pass all City Code requirements.) At first he misunderstood how to calculate the setback but now understands. He requests a variance because he desperately needs cover for his property. He would do all he could to make it look better like adding vines. Also, he's not sure that denying the variance would solve the problem because if the variance is not granted he could cut the structure down by 10 feet (making it a 10' x 18' foot structure) and come into compliance. Board Discussion: Daggett wondered what staffs experience is in like situations. Barnes reported that he's not often seen carports that encroach on the setback similar to this situation. Barnes said that three criteria should be considered: 1) when reviewing the merits of this appeal need to consider hardship, unique (unusual and difficult to comply) and not self imposed; 2) equal to or better than the standard; or 3) nominal and inconsequential. Is 10 feet nominal and inconsequential in the context Of the neighborhood? Barnes also noted the appellant was aware there was no garage available at the time of his rental. Pisula believes the request is really out of character with the neighborhood. Hall is struggling with justification because there are a number of homes that do not have garages —this is not a unique situation. Pisula made a motion to deny appeal 2532 for the following reasons: the information presented fails to meet the criteria for granting a variance including: the absence of a garage was known by the applicant at the time he rented the property and precludes justifying hardship (self imposed,) ZBA November 10, 2005 — Page 4 the facts of the case are not defensible in an equal to or better than situation, and the structure extends into the streetscape and is not In character with the neighborhood and is consequential. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula Nays: None 5. Appeal NO. 2533 - Approved with Condition Address 829 Laporte Avenue Petitioner Highcraft Builders Zone NCL Section 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 6' to 4.5' and would reduce the required street side setback along Washington Avenue from 15' to 10.5' in order to allow a 2 story addition on the rear of the home. The height of the proposed wall along the east lot line is 19' 1", which will require a 6' setback. The addition will line up with the existing east and west walls of the home, so the proposed setbacks will match the existing setbacks. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The setback of the original house is currently 4.5' from the east property line and the petitioner is proposing to continue the addition along the same footprint line of the existing portion of the house. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property is at the corner of Laporte & Washington. The lot is 40 foot wide and the existing house is non -conforming on both the east and west sides. The property owners want to construct the addition extending the current structure alignment and adding a second story. Hall asked Barnes how many 40 foot lots can be found in the old town area. A typical plat has many 50 foot lots with some 40 foot lots. There are many lots less than 50 feet —that's not unusual. Dickson wondered if Historic Preservation staff had concerns about this project. Barnes spoke to Karen McWilliams but in her absence could not speak for her. Applicant Participation: Brian Silth of Highcraft Builders, representing the property owners Sara & Jeff Germain, noted the purpose of the project is to take a small 630 square foot home with 1 bedroom and expand it to serve a family with two small children. Hall wondered if instead of adding a second story, the home could be extended. Per Silth that option had been explored. It works better architecturally to go up rather than have a long, skinny house. Homeowner Sara Germain added they'd like to retain the land behind the home as a play area for their children. Board Discussion: Dickson noted the hardship is self imposed and would not be an argument in favor of granting the variance. Barnes noted that 40 foot lots are unusual 50% of the time. In reviewing an appeal, it makes a difference whether the lot is on a corner versus on the interior of the block. Hall agreed Z BA November 10, 2005 — Page 5 that the street setback (from 15' to 10.5') is less concerning than the issue the impact of a 4.5 setback has on the east side adjacent property owner's light and space. With a second story, they would create a "canyon effect." Hall asked Highcraft Builders if they could offer anything that would mitigate the 4.5 foot setback? Per Silth, shifting it even one foot would require excavating and the need to create new access to the basement. Additionally, the flow of the house would not work well and would negatively impact the family's need to create functional family space. Barnes noted that if the designed moved the extension in by 'A foot and lowered the elevation by 1 foot that a variance would not been needed on the east side. Barnes noted another option is to consider lowering the home 1 foot (to 16 feet) and grant a variance of'%foot which could be considered nominal and inconsequential. Homecraft Builders agreed that would be a workable option. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal 2533 with condition for the following reasons: it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposed addition as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard. On the west (Washington Street) side there is space and light not out of character with other homes in the neighborhood. On the east side, the applicant must restrict the building height to an 16 foot maximum and then the one-half foot variance (from the 5 foot setback requirement) would be nominal and inconsequential. Pisula seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula Nays: None 6. Appeal NO. 2534 —Approved Address 3020 Virginia Dale Petitioner Ryan Moore Zone RL Section 4.3 (D)(2) (b) and (c) Background: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20' to 16.5' for a one -car garage addition to the north side of the existing garage. The garage is at an angle to the street, so only a comer of the garage encroaches into the 20' setback. The variance would also reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 14' in order to allow a covered deck addition. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The front of the garage addition can't be moved back further because that would result In minimizing the amount of light provided to the master bathroom. Only a small portion of the garage (about 10.5 sq. ft.) encroaches into the required 20' setback. The rear of the property abuts a City park, and therefore the intent of the rear setback is met since there are no other homes affected by this. Staff Comments: In addition to the petitioner's justification, the lot is an irregular shaped lot, resulting in some unusual angles to which setbacks are measured. The rear setback reduction request is similar to other variances that have been granted by the Board in that the rear of the property abuts open space. Thus the intent of the rear setback is met. ZBA November 10, 2005 — Page 6 Staff Presentation: Berries presented slides relevant to the appeal. In the past, the Board had reviewed rear setback variances where the abutting property was open space. Dickson asked for clarification of the variances being requested. Barnes noted the variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20' to 16.5' for a one -car garage addition to the north side of the existing garage and would also reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 14' in order to allow a covered deck addition. Applicant Participation: Ryan Moore, contractor for property owner Lori Pivonka Livingston, noted that due to the irregular shape of the lot, they were limited in design options. Hall wondered If they could push the garage back. Per Moore no —the front of the garage addition can't be moved back further because that would result in minimizing the amount of light provided to the master bathroom and would impact the covered deck addition. Board Discussion: Hall noted that variances have been granted previously when the property abuts open space. Hall made a motion to approve appeal 2534 for the following reasons: it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposed addition as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard, the front setback for the garage addition would be moved to 16.5 feet due to the rounded comer portion of the lot and is nominal and inconsequential, and the rear yard setback for the covered deck would be moved to 14 feet and satisfies the equal to or better than criteria. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula Nays: None 7. Other Business. • Pisula will not be in attendance at the December meeting. Daggett will be gone for the January and February meetings. • Members wondered when the election of chair and vice chair will take place. Barnes will check with the City Clerk's office and will let members know in advance of the election' meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. Clwig Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator