Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/08/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — March 8, 2007 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) hairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 8, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. 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 Dana McBride Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Donahue STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dickson made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 8, 2007 meeting. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Abstain: Miscio Nays: 3. APPEAL NO. 2568 — Approved with Conditions Address: 325 Smith Street Petitioner: Traci Downs Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 10' and reduce the required side yard setback from the south lot line from 5' to 3.5', in order to allow the construction of a new one -car, detached garage. The new garage will be located at the end of the existing concrete driveway. ZBA March 8, 2007—Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter Staff Comments: Since the new garage will be in approximately the same location as the previous garage and since other properties adjacent to this one have garages that also encroach into the required setback, the proposal may be "nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood". Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Ms. Downs' letter of application outlines her rationale for the setback variances given the unique characteristics of her property. Additionally, she's provided a list of adjacent property owners who've by their signature agree that the variances should be granted. In this particular old town neighborhood a rear yard setback of 15 feet is required unless it abuts an alley. Years ago the lot was split so it no longer abuts the alley, therefore, a variance is required. A side yard variance is also requested as the proposed garage would be at the end of an already established driveway that runs along the property line on this shallow lot. It's similar in placement to the garage on the adjacent property. Hall asked if the garage was closer to the lot line and the adjacent property garage, if there would be more stringent fire code requirements. Regulations address properties closer than three feet ... in this case it will be 3.5 feet so it will not be subject to those regulations. Applicant Participation: Ms. Downs thought the presentation made by Barnes fairly represented the situation. Additionally, she wanted to let the Board know that its proposed placement was the most practical. It will be where the original garage stood (the one demolished by the previous owner when it reached a dilapidated state.) The placement allows 3.5 feet on the side yard and 10 feet in the back for walk through and maintenance. She wants to build the garage in scale with her lot, the neighborhood and in a design consistent with the architecture of the home. Miscio asked if the proposed garage would be on the concrete pad of the original garage. No, at demolition no concrete pad remained. She, in fact, wants to come out approximately four more feet to allow for a standard sized vehicle and storage of tools —the garage will be closer to the street than her adjacent neighbor's garage. Board Discussion: Dickson thought the request was nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood especially because it would be where the original garage had been and would line up with the driveway along the property line. McBride was inclined to grant the variances especially if the mass of the structure did not overwhelm the adjacent property. He would like to see it approved as drawn. The drawing showed 24 feet in length. He thought if the condition could be added not to exceed 28 feet. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2568 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 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 Section 1.2.2. Specifically it fits in the context of the neighborhood —the most impacted adjacent property owner's garage has the same placement —narrow lot, end of the driveway, and close to the property line. (What's proposed is the most practical solution.) The ZBA March 8, 2007—Page 3 granting of the variance is conditioned on it being built as proposed in the submitted drawing and that it should not exceed 28 feet in length. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2569 —Approved Address: 105 E. Lincoln Avenue Petitioner: WG Architects Zone: T Section: 4.12(1)(b) Background: The variance will allow a 1248 square foot, one story office addition to the north side of the Team Petroleum building. Since the property is in the T (transition) zone, an addition is allowed only if the property is rezoned or if a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is obtained. The addition is intended to create additional office space for the current employees. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The proposed addition is small and is an improvement over the existing building front. The Transition zone does allow for additions and improvements to existing buildings as long as the character of the improvement doesn't constitute development or redevelopment of the property. In this case, the addition is proposed in order to meet the needs of the current employees of the business. Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the T zone. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. When transitioning to the Land Use Code in 1997, a few parcels were placed in the "T" (Transition) Zone. The parcels were considered "hot spots' and placed in "holding patterns" until redevelopment takes place. An improvement of 25% or greater triggers the need to bring the property into compliance with current regulations such as landscaping and hard surface parking and driveways. Many of the T Zone parcels have been redeveloped and placed in other zoning districts since the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997. The proposed addition is only 1248 square foot (13% of the lot) so only a variance is required. Team Petroleum is located on Lincoln Avenue with Ranch Way Feed on the west and InSitu on the east. The building houses offices and petroleum products storage. The proposed office space addition will be one story and will extend from the north side of the building by 17 feet. Applicant Participation: Bob Gustafson of WG Architects, representing the owner, noted that Team Petroleum is a local distributor of fuel, oil and lubricants. There is very little walk in traffic as its customers are not the general public but rather farmers, ranchers and smaller retail. Most of their business is deliveries with very little traffic on site. The addition will provide additional office space to current staff. Additionally, they'll be improving the design and adding landscaping at the foundation level. ZBA March 8, 2007—Page 4 They are not looking for redevelopment —simply asking for a small addition. They do not know the future and want to stay in the T Zone. Board Discussion: Barnes wanted to inform the Board that should they consider approving the variance request, they cannot use the equal to or better than or nominal and inconsequential justifications —the only justification allowed is unique circumstances and undue hardship on owner. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2569 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and there is a hardship in the fact that it is zoned "T". The nature of the addition and its uses are in keeping within the context of the neighborhood. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the T Zone and does not constitute redevelopment. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 5. APPEAL NO. 2570—Approved Address: 1215 Bateleur Lane Petitioner: Trev & Stacey Richter Zone: LE Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 4.3' in order to allow the corner of the attached garage of the nearly completed house to encroach 9" into the setback. Since the house is set at an angle to the side lot line and just the corner of the garage encroaches, only about 2 square feet of the building is in the setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: This is a self-imposed hardship and therefore the hardship standard can not be used as justification for a variance. Therefore, the Board must find that the proposal is "equal to or better" than, or is "nominal and inconsequential". Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. A variance is required for the owner to get a certificate of occupancy for their newly constructed home. They discovered at the time their neighbor began construction on a fence and its associated survey that the corner of their garage encroached on the required setback. Applicant Participation: Trev Richter, the owner, is building the house. The unfortunate mistake took place at the time he contracted for concrete to be poured on the foundation of the garage. The house is set at an angle to the side lot line and just the corner of the garage encroaches. The neighbor has a large setback from his property line to his home so there is lots of space between the homes. In fact, the neighbor most affected does not object to the variance. ZBA March 8, 2007—Page 5 Board Discussion: The Board believes this particular request is a good candidate for nominal and inconsequential. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2570 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 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 Section 1.2.2. Specifically, nine inches on the corner is such a very small portion of the house in the setback and the neighbor's setback is quite a distance from the lot line. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Other Business: The Board and staff discussed differences in side setback standards that are zone specific in Article 4 versus those that are general standards in Article 3 which are intended to apply to most new developments. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. Dwight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator