Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/14/2005Minutes to be approved by the Board at the August 11, 2005 meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting - July 14, 2005 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Dwight Hall Phone: (H) 224-4029 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 14, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Dickson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board 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: Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 9, 2005 meeting. Hall seconded the motion. Pisula abstained. The motion passed. ZBA July 14, 2005 —Page 2 3. APPEAL NO 2514 - Approved Address: 517 Garfield Street Petitioner: Tara Berglund Zone: NCM Section: 4.7 (E)(4) Background: Petitioner is requesting that an addition representing an enclosed stairwell be located along the east -side property line 3.5' from that property line. The existing stairway leads to the basement and is exterior to the home. The LUC requires a minimum 5' side -yard setback along this property line. The stairway enclosure will convert this stairway from an exterior accessed stairway that at one time served as an entry into a basement apartment. The new stairway will be an interior accessed stairway for this single family home. The Board discussed this request at the June 9, 2005 meeting, but tabled the matter until July 14, 2005 in order to allow the applicant opportunity to submit a revised plan that requires less of a variance. The June submittal was to allow a setback of 2' -2", the revised submittal requests a 3.5' setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The stairs already exist though they will need to be rebuilt. There also exists an interior stairway to the basement however its location does not permit reasonable access due to its small size. The present location of the exterior stairs is the best possible route for the new enclosed stairway. Staff Comments: The applicant has redesigned the enclosure in order to reduce the amount of encroachment into the setback. Barnes said with the redesign less of a variance was needed. McBride excused himself due to a conflict of interest Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: Ms. Berglund submitted a revised plan (after checking with the Building Department on a design that would meet building code.) She also worked to get written support from her neighbor who would be most affected by the variance. The owner (who does not live in the home) had given verbal approval. She had tried on more than one occasion to get it in writing but at this time could only offer the verbal okay. Board Discussion: Miscio was happy to hear the neighbor had no problem with the encroachment and that the redesign better meets building code standards. He also thought the 1,5" variance was inconsequential. Donohue stated while the hardship was self-imposed, the applicant did work to mitigate it, including meeting the minimum of 3 feet to be fire rated. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal 2514. The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as eason or approving the appealt n'cI ded a moire obtrusive design, t ersecondfsubmittal diminished peal l that to only ah one anda ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 3 half foot variance request. Additionally, the neighbor having most impact does not object to the proposed design. Hall seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO 2515 - Approved Address: 938 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Jamie Haggard Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.4 to 1 in order to allow the construction of a new 600 square foot detached garage in the rear portion of the lot. An existing, smaller garage will be removed. A similar variance was requested at the April 14, 2005 Zoning Board meeting, but was denied. The applicant has since redesigned the proposed garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: A variance was recently approved to reduce the side setback requirement for a proposed addition to the house. The applicant also would like to demolish the existing 1 car garage as part of the overall remodel plans and replace it with a larger garage. The proposed garage is similar to others in the neighborhood. The existing lot area to floor area ratio with the approved house addition is 2.65 to 1, so the requested reduction from 3 to 1, in reality is a requested reduction from the existing 2.65 to 2.4. Staff Comments: Although the required lot area to floor area ratio is 3 to 1, this variance request is actually seeking to reduce the existing ratio, which is already less than 3 to 1. Therefore the request is not as large a divergence from the code when compared to the existing situation. One of the Board's concerns at the April meeting was with the mass of the proposed garage. The applicant's current submittal proposes a garage that has less bulk and mass. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: The applicants, working with their architect, revised the garage design. The new design meets the existing alley setback and has a double and a single door. The height of the revised design is 21 feet (from the original proposed 24 feet.) As relates to the 3 to 1 ratio requirement, the Haggards provided pictures of garages and open space for homes on Mountain and neighboring streets. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 4 Board Discussion: Miscio liked the revised design because the rear of the garage was less obtrusive. Also, he likes the setback because if gives a better sense of space in the alleyway. He believes the design has an impact on the lot open space ratio. The board had some questions about two different code sections and whether one superseded the other. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal 2516 for the following reasons: not detrimental to the public good, and will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Sections 1.2.2. Further the placement of the proposed garage is an improvement over the placement of the existing garage. Its' a far superior structure and is aesthetically pleasing. The setback requirement is satisfied and it promotes open space. Donahue seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 5. Appeal NO. 2516 - Approved with condition Address 639 Atwood Petitioner Kenneth Brown Zone RL Section 4.3(D)(2) 9 ( c) Background: Petitioner is requesting that an open deck greater than 30" above grade be constructed at the rear of the property and attached to the house. The proposed deck would be set back 9' from the rear property line. The RL zoning district requires a 15' min. rear setback. Petitioner is requesting a 9' min. rear setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: 1. The rear yard is shallow at about 20' in depth. The rear door of the house exits to the rear yard. 2. There are no direct residential neighbors to the rear or south of the property as the adjacent area represents a storm drainage open area. Staff Comments: Since the lot abuts an open space to the rear, situation. The Board has previously determined satisfied "equally well" when there are no abutting yard setback. its may qualify as an "equal to or better than" n some instances that the intent of the code is residential properties affected by a reduced rear Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. A letter from Ridgewood Hills Master Association requesting property owners getting Architectural Control Committee approval prior to approving the appeal was read. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 5 Applicant Participation: Mr. Brown mentioned he had submitted a letter to the Ridgewood Hills Master Association Architectural Control Committee requesting approval in February and had obtained their approval in March. With the stormwater open space behind him it would not hinder, in fact, it would enhance the neighborhood. He'd like to make the steps less steep and provide a larger, more useful deck for his family (including elderly parents.) Board Discussion: Hall believes this appeal is similar to others the board's reviewed in the past. The open space behind the property reduces any impact to others as relates to open space and the free flow of air and light. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal 2516 for the reasons it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposal 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 for which the variance is requested since the lot abuts an open space. A condition of the approval is the deck shall remain open —not enclosed. Donahue seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 6. Appeal NO. 2517 -- Approved with condition Address 3550 Coneflower Drive Petitioner Charles Ledger Zone RF Section 4.2(E)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 13' in order to allow a 12' x 27.5' deck to be constructed on the rear of the existing house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The 12' dimension of the deck is the minimum depth necessary to accommodate patio furnishings. The house backs up to open space, therefore, the intent of the code is met and the 2' setback encroachment does not affect any other properties. Staff Comments: The Board may determine that this request satisfies the intent of the code "equally well or better than" since the lot currently backs up to open space. The difference between this lot and the previous variance though is that the open space behind this particular property is "open" due to the fact it is currently undeveloped and is in the county. Therefore, it can not be stated at this time with absolute certainty that the area behind this lot will be an open space area when the property develops. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 6 Applicant Participation: Mr. Ledger met with his homeowners association and reviewed two proposed development plans for the property behind his. In both proposals — for his property and the two houses east of him, the land would remain open. Board Discussion: Hall agreed this request is very similar to the previous request except for the caveat that final development plans are unknown. If the property owner is willing to give his assurance the deck would remain open he was inclined to grant the variance. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal 2517 for the reasons it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposal 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 because the property adjoins open space. A condition of the approval is the deck shall remain open. Hall seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 7. Appeal NO. 2518 — Approved with condition Address 6326 Westchase Road Petitioner Robert Amidon, 6 point Construction Zone UE Section 4.1(D)(2)(c) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 25' to 10.5' in order to allow a 110 square foot detached shade structure to be constructed in the rear portion of the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property backs up to the Fossil Creek Open Space, so the intent of the code is met since there are no other buildings or properties impacted by this proposed location. Staff Comments: The Board may determine that this request satisfies the "equal to or better than" standard since the lot backs up to dedicated open space. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property lot size is one half acre. The proposed 110 square feet shade structure is not eligible for the 144 square foot storage structure exemption because people will sit under it and it needs to be built to allow for snow load. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 7 Applicant Participation: Robert Amidon of 6 Point Construction, 3579 Polk Circle East, Wellington was representing the owners (Richards) of the 6326 Westchase Road property. The proposed structure is small in comparison to the other structure (home) on the lot and would add aesthetically to the neighborhood. The structure is free-standing and open. It will be attached to concrete piers as required by code and will be built far enough from the rear lot line to accommodate the existing easement. Board Discussion: Board agreed it was similar to the two previous appeals. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal 2518 for the reasons it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposal 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 since the property is on a half acre lot that adjoins open space with ample room, light and space. A condition of the approval is the structure will remain open. Hall seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 8. Appeal NO. 2519 -Tabled Address 500 90' Street Petitioner Steve Fobes, Home State Bank Zone RL Section 4,3 (D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5' to 3' and along the Romero Street side lot line from 15' to 2.9' in order to allow a house to be moved onto this vacant lot. Specifically, the house at the northwest corner of Raintree Drive and Shields Street is proposed to be relocated to this location. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The approved, platted lot has only 50' of lot width. The home will be donated to Habitat for Humanity, but it's been difficult to find lots for this project. The side setbacks are unachievable on this lot due to the width of the existing house on the 50' wide lot. Staff Comments: This request could be construed as a self-imposed hardship since a stick -built house that complies with the code could be built on the lot or the proposed relocated house could be moved to another, more suitable lot. A possible solution that might be acceptable would be to remove the 12' x 14' rear portion of the house. The house would thus be reduced to approximately 1600 square feet, which would still be an adequate size, but it could be turned to front on Romero Street. This would result in a setback of 9' from Romero instead of the 2.9' proposed, and a setback of 5' from the north lot line instead of the 3' proposed. The lot is 50', which is narrower than the 60' lot width normally required in the RL zone. The lots in this subdivision were platted many years before they were annexed into the city, and therefore the lots are narrower than what would be required for a city subdivision in this zoning district. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 8 Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Easements are in the alleys as was the practice many years ago. A letter signed by 14 Andersonville neighbors was read. They expressed concern that moving the home to their neighborhood would have a negative impact on a Historic District designation that's been in the works for three plus years. They also had concerns the style of the home did not match the neighborhood. Karen McWilliams of Advance Planning raised concerns about how the house will be situated on the lot. For historic district designation purposes, a tally of contributing to non-contributing structures is calculated. Like other homes in the area, it would be important to align placement on the lot similar to other neighboring properties to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood-- the preference would be to move it further forward on 91h (Lemay) and have the front entrance to the home there. Applicant Participation: Scott Kraft of BHA Design represented Steve Fobes and Home State Bank. The bank, working with Habitat for Humanity, wanted to donate the home to improve community affordable housing stock. Habitat would pay for moving expenses. Since the original submittal, a 12'x14' rear addition to the current home had been removed to reduce its size and make it more conducive to the lot. The home had been turned to face Romero Street thus the only variance required is to reduce the setback along Romero to 8'9". Board Discussion: The board was unclear —what was the setback for neighboring properties, how would the home be placed on the lot; and, what in fact, were the setback variance requests for 9'h and Romero streets? They were also concerns about the neighbor's reservations. Miscio would prefer not to lose the opportunity for a $100,000 asset for the community. The board considered Mr. Kraft's feedback that because of timing, the structure needed to be moved in August. He also shared the information that in addition to timing, if the requirements became too much of a headache, the offer to donate the structure might be withdrawn. McBride made a motion to approve appeal 2519 for reasons not detrimental to the public good and the reasons it would be consistent with setbacks and style of homes in the neighborhood. The motion was conditioned on the front door being relocated facing 91h Street and some sort of gabled roof structure be added to indicate the doors on that side of the house thereby making the setback variance for the Romero Street side 8.9 feet (from the 15 foot requirement.) Miscio seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, McBride, Miscio Nays: Donahue, Hall, Piscula The motion failed. Some members of the Board expressed the need for more information to determine if the request satisfied the standards necessary for the granting of a variance. Miscio moved the appeal be tabled until the August 11'h meeting. He recommended the applicant provide documentation with setback information for the other properties on 9'h and Romero streets. He also wanted them to check the feasibility of moving the door from the side —making the front entrance on 9`h street. He recommended they meet with Ms. McWilliams and neighbors to make sure they were on board with any proposal. Hall seconded. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 9 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 9. Appeal NO. 2520 -Denied Address Maple Hill Subdivision Petitioner J2 Development Zone LMN Section 3.5.2(D)(3) Background: The variance would be a blanket variance for numerous lots in the Maple Hill subdivision, including lots in blocks 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 27, The variance would reduce the interior side yard setback on numerous lots from 5' to no less than 4.5' and reduce the corner side yard setback on numerous lots from 15' to no less than 14.5', in order to allow single family dwelling units up to 40' in width to be constructed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The potential builder of these homes does not have a product that will accommodate these narrower lots. The variance is only requesting at the most a setback reduction of 6 inches. Half of the lots will only be reduced by approximately 2 inches. Staff Comments: The Board could determine that this is a self-imposed hardship since 1) the builder wants to use house models that he currently has designed instead of designing new models that fit onto the lots, or 2) the developer could replat the lots to make them wider. On the other hand, the Board may find that the deviation proposed is "nominal and inconsequential" when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: Woodcrest Homes is negotiating the purchase of lots in the Maple Hill subdivision south of Maple Hill Drive with the owner's representative, J2 Development. Woodcrest believes they offer Fort Collins buyers an affordable home (priced between $220,000 and $270,000) in a 1716 to 2409 square foot home size. They are a privately held builder and the cost to reengineer the design represents a hardship against the request for a variance of just a few inches for the 65 affected lots. Board Discussion: Hall reminded the applicant that financial hardship was not justification for a request. Hall was concerned that while the variance was small there was no justification other than financial hardship. Miscio said that self-imposed hardship did not meet the equal to or better standard. The ZBA July 14, 2005 —Page 10 bottom line is that either the models needed to be modified to accommodate the lot or the lot lines needed to be changed. Miscio was worried that a decision (even for a small amount) was precedence setting. Hall made a motion to deny appeal 2520 for the reason that the applicant did not satisfy the hardship criteria. The only reasons given were financial and cannot be considered. Donohue seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 10. Appeal NO. 2521 —Approved with condition Address 510 Pearl Street Petitioner Jacob Kirk Zoning NCL Section 4.6(E)(4) AND 4.6(F)(1)(c) Background: The variance would allow a reduction in the south side yard setback from 5 feet to 4.5 feet in order to allow the construction of a single car garage addition. There is currently no garage on this lot. The variance would also allow the front face of the garage to be flush with the rest of the house instead of setback 10 feet as required by code. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is a large tree behind the house, where the garage would need to be located and the tree would need to be removed if the garage were pushed back 10 feet to meet the code requirement. Other homes in the area have garages that are flush with the front of the homes. The width request is in order to allow for additional storage in the garage. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The NCL zone establishes standards for homes in the zoning district built 100 years ago. Mr. Kirk's home is in a newer subdivision and he provided photos of other homes in his immediate area where setbacks were minimal or non existent. Applicant Participation: Mr. Kirk would like to preserve the tree to the rear of the proposed garage. Because he's limited to a single wide garage, he'd like to make it long to provide a shop area. He'd also like the garage, like other homes in his immediate neighborhood, to be flush with the home. All the neighbors are fine with the proposal. Board Discussion: Donahue asked if he'd be willing to pull the garage 2 feet back from the front of the home. Mr. Kirk agreed that was doable. McBride asked to see drawings and had concerns about the proposed flat roof —even pitched as required by code --did not meet the aesthetics of the neighborhood. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 11 Hall moved to approve appeal 2521 as it was not detrimental to the public good and the proposal 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 since this home is in a newer subdivision in the NCL zone (wherein the character of the homes is a flush or slightly recessed garage.) The purpose of the standard is really to ensure the character of the old town subdivisions is maintained. Further the two foot garage setback would preserve the historical character of the neighborhood. The south (side yard) setback could be 4.5 feet (from the 5 setback requirement.) The approval is conditioned on the roof line closely matching the existing roof and siding on the garage represents what's on the home. Miscio seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 11. Appeal NO. 2522 — Approved with condition Address 1116 Maple Street Petitioner Roma Saracino Zone LMN Section 3.5.2(D)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the north lot line from 8' to 2' and would reduce the required side yard setback from the west lot line from 5' to 1' in order to allow a new 2-car detached garage to be constructed on the existing foundation. The previous garage on the foundation was destroyed by fire in 2003. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This proposed garage could have been rebuilt without the need for a variance if the building permit were obtained within 6 months from the date of the fire. However, due to the death of the petitioner's husband, some estate and property issues had to be decided by the courts. Therefore, the reconstruction has been unavoidably delayed. The petitioner is now requesting to build a garage in the same location and to the same size as the previous one. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The code allows for a non -conforming structure to be reconstructed if damaged by natural calamity if rebuilt within six months. In this instance there was a delay and all new construction needs to comply with current code. Applicant Participation: Had nothing to add other than due to personal hardship there was a delay in construction and she's applied for a variance that allows her to build on the existing foundation. ZBA July 14, 2005 — Page 12 Board Discussion: At Hall's request for anyone opposed to the variance, Mr. Leonard Hoyt of 312 N. Pearl (Mrs. Saracino's neighbor to the north) came forward. He shares 34-36 feet of property line with Mrs. Saracino. As proposed there is not enough room for maintenance of the building —it's already created a problem for him. When the fire damaged garage was torn down, the contractor was not very conscientious about cleaning up debris left on his property. He asked for a larger buffer between properties —at least a 5 foot setback. Miscio understood the reasons for the delay and he'd like to see the proposal modified to limit its impact on Mr. Hoyt. Mrs. Saracino agreed to reduce the garage apron and install a 16 foot garage door. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal 2522 as it would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional circumstances (beyond her control) to cause the applicant to apply for a variance. The variance is conditioned on a rear setback of 5 feet and a side setback of 3 feet. Hall seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 12. Other Business. None. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Dwight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator