Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/09/2006FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — November 9, 2006 8:30 a.m. IlCouncil Liaison: Kelly Ohlson I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 9, 2006 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dana McBride STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Miscio made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 14, 2006 meeting. Pisula seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO. 2563 — Approved Address: 3019 Conestoga Court Petitioner: James & Cindy Pursel 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 27' in order to allow the existing attached storage shed to remain. The shed was constructed in 1994 by the previous owner without first obtaining a building permit. The new owners would like to obtain a permit now and fire rate the building as required by code. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The shed has been in this location for about 12 years and to date none of the neighbors have complained about it. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. fence, is less than five feet from the property line. ZBA November 9, 2006—Page 2 The shed, attached to the home and behind the Applicant Participation: Cindy Pursel had very little to add to the staff presentation except to note they first became aware of the noncompliance issue when a Building Inspector working in the area noticed the shed. It was built without a permit by the previous owner. If a variance is approved, they would move forward with getting a building permit and installing fire rated wall board on the inside of the shed. If the variance is not approved, they would need to demolish the shed. Their hardship is they would lose their garden equipment storage and incur the costs of demolition. Board Discussion: Donahue noted the shed with its slanting roof is not imposing on the adjacent property. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2563 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the 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 Section 1.2.2. Specifically, the shed has been in place for twelve years and has not been an issue for the neighbors. They, in fact, support the variance. The applicant will be required to comply with fire rating codes as a part of the permitting process. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: APPEAL NO. 2564 — Approved with conditions Address: 700 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Oliver & Janna Pijoan Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 sq. ft. to 8,375 sq. ft, reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.5 to 1, and reduce the required street side setback along Loomis from 15 ft. to 8 ft. in order to allow the construction of a new single family home on the rear portion of the lot, to the north of the existing office building. The 8' reduction along Loomis is for a porch cover only, the house itself complies with the 15' setback requirement. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing building is at a 0' setback along Loomis, so the new building will be an improvement and the porch cover setback variance is nominal compared to the existing situation. Many of the lots in the neighborhood already have a detached building in the rear portion of the lot, so the building is not out of context with regards to rear lot buildings. The proposed building is a street fronting building and will match all of the other corners of this block and the abutting block, wherein all the corner lots have previously been split to accommodate an additional home. This property is unique in that it is the only one in the neighborhood that currently does not contain a residential use. ZBA November 9, 200C-Page 3 Staff Comments: The Board has determined that large mature trees can be a contributing factor for a topographic hardship. Part of the petitioner's justification for the setback variance is attributed to the existence of the large tree along the west lot line. As indicated in the petitioner's statement of justification, it is not unusual for corner lots in the old town areas to have been divided over the years in order to accommodate a second building that fronts on the side street of the lot. In that respect, the proposal could be viewed as nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. This application is unique in that the only building currently on the lot is for commercial use. The lot is in a low -density residential area (NCL Zone) on the NE corner of Mountain & Loomis where the lot area to floor area ratio is 3 to 1. The current structure was built in 1905 and was used as a neighborhood grocery store —commercial use has continued to today. Adding another principal building triggers the requirement for a 12,000 square foot lot (6,000 square feet for each principal building.) Barnes has received three letters in support of the variances from adjacent neighbors. Applicant Participation: Oliver & Janna Pijoan have owned the property since 1999 and have used it for business purposes. They would like to build and live in a modest sized (1425 square foot-835 square feet on the first floor and 590 square feet on the second floor) home at the back of the lot close to the alley. They appreciate the character of the neighborhood and have designed a structure in scale and in character with the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Hall invited those in favor of or opposed to the variance to speak. • Kevin Mayberry lives at 704 W. Mountain. They've lived in their home since 1990 and appreciate how the Pijoans have cared for the property just east of theirs. His home and carriage house have been given historic designation and he believes the proposed building and its placement is an enhancement to his property and the neighborhood. • Joan Housley lives at 708 W. Mountain. In fact her family has been in that home since 1918. She is against granting the variance because she believes the Pijoan's business generates a lot of business traffic and the rear of the lot should be used as a parking lot. She doesn't believe there is enough room for another structure. • Jane Housley (daughter of Joan Housley) lives on the 400 block of Laporte Avenue. She mentioned that only 704 W. Mountain has a carriage house. All other homes on that block have detached garages on the alley. She believes it would be different if they put a garage or carriage house but this is a house. She also has concerns about the size of the proposed structure and the fact that a number of their clients come at one time and stay for an extended period of time. • Christopher Koosey lives on Sherwood. Mr. Koosey is an architect and planner and has been helping the Pijoans with the design of the structure and its placement. They are interested in doing something positive for the neighborhood and have considered all the objections voiced by the neighbors. They are sensitive to historic preservation and want to keep it in character with the neighborhood. Barnes noted zoning is for a single family dwelling and the new structure will be required to provide off street parking. The Pijoans explained they are open for business four days a week and could have from four to five clients at one time. They have 2 parking spaces in front of the business on Mountain and space for seven cars on Loomis. They encourage their clients to use Loomis. At one point they had two businesses in the building but it's their intention to have only one business there. Dickson asked if there are any historic preservation considerations. Paul Eckman noted ZBA November 9, 2006—Page 4 they are not in a historically designated area and at the time of their application for a building permit, Historic Preservation Planners will review their plans. Miscio thinks parking is a non -issue. Dickson agreed. Miscio believes the proposed structure is in scale with the neighborhood and a house in the back would be complimentary to the neighborhood, He's in favor of granting the variance. Hall agrees the owner has gone to a lot of trouble to make the structure compatible with the neighborhood. Donahue believes that being a corner lot does not have as much impact on the neighborhood as an inside lot. He also believes its proximity to the NCM zone (directly across the street) with a lot area to floor area ratio requirement of 2.5 to 1 should also be considered. This appeal is confusing because of its unique characteristics ... there are not many like it due to its non -conforming use, the lot area requirement of 12,000 sq. ft., the existing building has a zero setback, and consideration was given to not removing existing trees. Hall believed the design with an eight foot setback was better than the required setback of 15 feet given the zero setback of the existing building —the other significant structure on the lot. After some discussion, the Board decided to break the variance into 3 parts in order to better facilitate motions. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2564A to reduce the required street side setback along Loomis from 15 ft. to 8 ft. in order to allow the construction of a new single family home on the rear portion of the lot because the granting of the variance would not be 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. Specifically, the design would promote open space and be consistent with the neighborhood. The porch, as designed, is not enclosed, is open, and is not imposing --allowing more space on the west (Loomis) side. Because of the unique position on the lot and the setback of the existing structure, it is the most effective and efficient way to proceed. Donahue seconded the motion Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2564E to reduce the lot area to floor area ratio to 2.5 to 1 because the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the 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 Section 1.2.2. The impact on the neighborhood is nominal and inconsequential specifically, it is a corner lot with alley frontage and a large parkway/greenbelt along Loomis and Mountain. That placement gives the appearance of a larger lot and when that square footage is included it would increase the ratio to 3:1. Also the neighborhood directly across the street to the east has a 2.5 to 1 ratio requirement. The variance is granted as it fits in the context of this neighborhood. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2564C to reduce the required lot area from 12,000 sq. ft. to 8,375 sq. ft because the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the 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 ZBA November 9, 2006-Page 5 Section 1.2.2. The impact on the neighborhood is nominal and inconsequential specifically because the Board finds a corner lot split for a rear structure is not unusual. It is a common occurrence in old town. What is unusual is the front portion of the lot is commercial therefore the variance is approved on the condition that there be only one tenant in the commercial building and at which time the owner might want to convert the structure to residential, they would need to seek reapproval. Pisula seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 5. APPEAL NO. 2565-Approved with Condition Address: 1004 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Kiera Harkin Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot size from 6000 sq. ft. to 5600 sq. ft., reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.44 to 1, and reduce the required side yard setback along the east and west lot lines from 7' to 6' in order to allow the existing one story home to be demolished and a new 2-story home constructed in its place. The new home will be constructed in approximately the same location as the existing home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addition, the side setback of 7' is required since a small portion of the wall (26 sq. ft.) on both sides exceeds the height allowed at a 6' setback. Since this is only a very small portion of the wall, the request is nominal. A lot in the NCL zone requires a minimum of 6000 square feet. This is an older platted lot that was platted with only 5600 square feet, and therefore a variance is required since the construction is for a new building. If an addition to the existing home was proposed (instead of proposing a new home,) then a lot size variance would not be required. The lot area to floor area ratio being requested is similar to others in the neighborhood, some of which have received variances. Also, a 5600 square foot lot, while similar in size to the other lots in a 2 block area, is considerably smaller than the majority of the lots in the NCL zone. Staff Comments: The lot reduction request from 6000 sq. ft. to 5600 sq. ft. is reasonable since the lot was platted at a time prior to the current code requirement and was platted for the purpose of allowing a dwelling. The 7' setback is required at only a small portion of the wall, 26 sq. ft. The Board has usually considered this small of an area to be a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the code requirement. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The existing house has a detached garage. It's the owner's intent to demolish the garage and it is therefore not included in the calculation of the floor to lot area ratio. The single family home is centered on the lot —the new structure is proposed on the same footprint and with the a 8 foot length portion of the side walls on both sides of the house being 26 feet high, a 7" setback is required by code. Barnes reported he had received a letter from Mrs. Hazel Tuttle, who resides at 1008 W. Oak in opposition to granting the setback variance. ZBA November 9, 2006—Page 6 Applicant Participation: Keira Harkin, who resides at 800 W. Mountain, is the designer/representative of the owner. The family has owned the homes at 1004 W. Oak (and 1010 W. Oak) since 1930. With the proposed design, the fourth generation will reside in the home. Initially they tried to build a ranch style home but were not able to design a plan that would accommodate the number of bedrooms needed for the children. With the decision to go to a two-story home, the dormers were added (triggering the setback requirement) to accommodate the bathroom design and to improve the aesthetic of the design. She noted that several homes on that side of the block have gone to two stories. Alicia Smith, daughter of the owner currently resides at 1010 W. Oak. They will move to 1004 W. Oak because the proposed design better suits her family's needs. One of her daughter's has epilepsy with bouts triggered every 35-40 minutes if exposed to sunlight. Their intent in including a covered back deck in the design is to provide a place for her to play. Ms. Smith believes Hazel's concerns can be attributed to their delay in improving the property at 1004 W. Oak (it sat vacant since her grandmother's death) to the same standards they have at 1010 W. Oak. That delay was caused by family emergencies and financial hardships. They are, however, ready to move forward and believe their attention to design and to improving the property will allay Hazel's concerns. Debbie Ray, mother of Alicia Smith and owner of the property, believes Hazel may also have had issue with a tree on 1010 W. Mountain whose limbs were encroaching on her roof. That tree has been trimmed and the issue resolved. As a family who have lived on the street for many generations they have a vested interest in maintaining the character of the neighborhood —she believes the house as proposed is a significant improvement to the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Hall invited those in favor of or opposed to the variance to speak. • Natasha Kotliar resides at 115 W. Washington and owns the property to the east of 1004 W. Oak. She has concerns that with the demolition of the garage, they will not have a place to park and store garden equipment. (Barnes noted that as a single family dwelling they would need to provide parking for one space ... on the building permit they will need to note where.) She also has concerns, like many in the neighborhood, about the changing character like the newly renovated home at Grant & Mountain. She does, however, appreciate they have tried to remain in the existing footprint and that they've paid attention to architectural design. She'd like to make sure they do not change from that design without approval. She also wanted to know if the Board could help in a dispute they have related to a common fence encroaching on her property. Hall noted that issue was not under the purview of the Board. Ms. Ray noted as a part of the improvement, survey stakes have been placed which identified one or two pickets on her neighbor's property. The fence will be torn down. The board discussed specifics of the design to explore if changes would mitigate the floor to lot area ratio and setback variance requests. Ms. Harkin said they were willing to consider some changes (including a request to move to a 38' x 28' foot structure (reducing the total square footage to 2128—and the initial submittal by 168 square feet.) The dormers were added to make it more appealing and to create headspace in the showers. A parking strip mimicking a house near by would be added as well as a small shed to accommodate garden tools. Basically the design as submitted was set to meet the needs of a family of five. They'd like to move forward today with securing the variance to get the family, who needs the space, into their home as quickly as possible. ZBA November 9, 2006—Page 7 Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2565 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the 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 Section 1.2.2. The impact on the neighborhood is nominal and inconsequential specifically because the lot size of 5600 sq. ft. was platted at a time prior to the current code requirement and there is no way to expand the lot, on average other neighborhood homes do not meet the floor to lot area ratio, the side yard setback is nominal as only three feet of the proposed new side walls is over the height limit and to eliminate the dormers would not help with the square footage and would take away from the appeal of the architecture design. The variance is granted conditioned on the garage being removed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued and that the lot area to floor area ratio be approved for a 2.63 to 1 ratio instead of the 2.44 to 1 that was requested. This would allow a house of 2128 square feet. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 6. Other Business: Barnes reported that staff will be recommending changes to the Land Use Code at their biannual review. The changes that might be of most interest to the Board are recommendations that the floor to lot area ratios be changed from 3:1 to 2.5 to 1 and detached buildings that are 800 square feet be allowed. If the recommendations are accepted by City Council, they could be in effect as early as December 29, 2006. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Dwight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator