Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/08/2006FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — June 8, 2006 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 8, 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 Dwight Hall Andy Miscio BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Donahue Dana McBride Jim Pisula STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, 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 May 11, 2006 meeting. Daggett seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO. 2553 — Approved with Conditions Address: 2510 W. Elizabeth Street Petitioner: Larry Hirschkorn Zone: RL Section: 3.5.2(D)(5) Background: The variance would allow a detached pole barn building to be larger than 800 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow the proposed single story building to be 1200 square feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is 1 acre in size, so it is considerably larger than the normal size city lot. Therefore, the lot area/floor area ratio for the proposed building will actually be less than the ratio would be for an 800 square foot building on a normal size lot of 8000 to 10,000 square feet. ZBA June 8, 2006 - Page 2 Staff Comments: This is similar to other variances that have been granted for detached buildings on large lots. The purpose of the standard to limit the amount of lot coverage of detached buildings is satisfied. The lot area to floor area ratio of the proposed situation is 36 to 1, whereas the lot area to floor area ratio of a situation that complies with the standard (an 800 square foot building on a 10,000 square foot lot) would be 12.5 to 1. Staff Presentation: Letters from neighbors LaVerna Barnhart, Gene Schoonveld, and Mary Nei in opposition to the variance were read. Barnes presented slides relevant to the application for variance and noted this request is similar to other requests where variances were requested on lots large enough to accommodate a detached building greater than 800 square feet. Additionally, in the RL zone there is no limit to the number of detached buildings and in this particular instance the lot to floor area ratio could accommodate up to six buildings. Applicant Participation: Larry Hirschkorn had no additional comments to add to staff's presentation. The purpose of the building is to provide a workshop and storage for his collection of five antique tractors. Placement of the building will be 20 feet from his east property line and 120 feet from his home. Miscio asked if with the construction of the new metal pole building, he would be willing to tear down some of the accessory buildings. Hirschkorn replied yes —he was planning to tear down what had previously been a chicken coup leaving two others that he uses for storage of items. Hall wondered if he would be in agreement to a condition the lot would not be subdivided should a variance to construct a 1200 square foot building be granted. Hirschkorn agreed that he would not subdivide. LaVerna Barnhart (who's letter had previously been read) provided additional comments when Hall asked if anyone in opposition to the variance cared to address the board. Barnhart said her major complaints are the number of dilapidated buildings and the ever-growing number of vehicles. She wondered if conditions to the variance could be that once the building was constructed, Hirschkorn be required to store vehicles in the building. Hirschkorn reported he had five antique tractors and trailers to pull them, a cultivator, a '65 Chevy, a Bronco, and a van. All but the trailers could be stored in the building. Barnhart also wondered if the building could be placed with the doors facing their home to create a buffer to the property in the back. She believes most of the problems could be addressed if "neighbors respect other neighbors." Board Discussion: Daggett wondered if Hirschkorn needed to come back with another plan after consulting with the neighbors. Miscio believed a variance could be granted using the equal to or better than justification. Miscio liked the design of the proposed structure; he also appreciated that Hirschkorn was willing to tear down a dilapidated structure and to improve the current situation overall. Dickson agreed. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2553 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 for which the variance is requested. The approval is granted with the following conditions: an existing shed will be removed, the property cannot be subdivided into other lots, there can be no outdoor storage along the east side of the building being constructed, and no other accessory buildings can be built. Dickson seconded the motion. ZBA June 8, 2006 - Page 3 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Miscio Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2554 — Tabled Address: 945 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Jim Falloon Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from the existing 2.64 to 1 to 1.78 to 1, reduce the required side yard setback from the east lot line from 9' to 3.5', and would reduce the required street side yard setback along Mack Street from 15' to 6'. The variances are requested in order to add a 1040 square foot second story to the existing house. The second story walls will line up with the existing walls of the home, which are already nonconforming. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is corner lot with a parkway along the street which gives the appearance that this lot is larger than it actually is thereby the affect of the lot area to floor area variance is nominal. There are other two story homes nearby, the roofline is only being raised by 4.75', the proposed design maintains the craftsman style, the existing side setback along Mack, and the additional wall height there will have a nominal impact. The existing east wall is already nonconforming at a 3.5' setback, the same setback that is proposed for the second story. The addition will not change the footprint. Staff Comments: The Board had heard numerous requests for lot area/floor area reductions in the old town areas, and has considered corner lots, such as this one, to be somewhat different from interior lots due to the extra parkway width that is "attached" to such lots. The variance request that is the most difficult to justify is the setback reduction along the east lot line due to the increased height. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application for variance. This home is in old town and is currently nonconforming in both lot to floor area ratio and setbacks on both the east and west property lines. Barnes noted that with the proposed added height of the second floor, the setback requirement on the east property line would increase to 9 feet. Applicant Participation: Jim Falloon noted the addition would be an improvement to the existing home adding critically needed space for their family. Over the life of their 10-year ownership they've explored a number of design options and believe the plan submitted suits both their family and the neighborhood. They believe they are making the best of the situation for the setbacks established at construction in 1906. They have letters of support from neighbors including those on the east (the family most impacted by the addition.) He believes the design, as proposed, improves privacy for both families. Lisa Falloon echoed her husband's comments relative to the family's space needs and noted that individuals in old town, enjoying its proximity to City Park and downtown, accept the reduced spaces (while not ideal) as a characteristic of their neighborhoods. ZBA June 8, 2006 - Page 4 Board Discussion: Miscio liked the proposal's design and believed it was comparable to other homes in the neighborhood. Hall agreed the design was well conceived but had reservations about the 1.78 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio and the setback variances —especially on the east property line. Dickson agreed with Hall. Hall wondered how typical 5600 square foot lots were in the neighborhood. Barnes responded that the lots on this block and a couple of other adjacent blocks were this same size, then moving to the east larger lots would be found (7500 square feet beyond 945 W. Mountain with 9500 square feet lots found even further east.) The Board considered the corner lot with a parkway along the street and what impact that additional space, if considered, would have on the lot area to floor area ratio calculation. (2240 + 5600=7840/3147 = 2.49.) The Board also considered approving the variance under the nominal and inconsequential justification but had reservations about that justification because not enough data was available to support how many other homes on that block were non -conforming relative to second stories and setbacks. After considerable discussion, there appeared to be Board consensus that the corner lot situation could allow for supporting the lot to floor area reduction and the setback reduction along Mack. However, there was still concern expressed about the setback reduction along the east side lot line. Most agreed that the proposal might be inconsequential, but there was still doubt that the proposal deviated from the standard in a "nominal" manner. Hall reviewed the Board's dilemma with the applicants. If a motion was made and resulted in a tie vote, the variance would be denied. If denied, they could return with a new proposal or new evidence to support a variance request. They also had the option of making an appeal (after denial by the ZBA) to City Council. Would they consider returning with more information? The information that might be helpful was evidence that other homes on their block were non- conforming in a similar manner as what is proposed (i.e. have second stories, have setbacks less than what is required by Code). The Falloons agreed to return with more information for the July meeting. Hall made a motion to table appeal number 2554 to allow the petitioner to get additional evidence on other non -conforming use properties in their area. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Miscio Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO. 2555 — Approved Address: NW Corner of Lincoln & LeMay. Property in question is north and east of existing bank. Petitioner: Jon Prouty Zone: MMN Section: 2.11.1(B), 2.2.3(D) Background: The petitioner is appealing the decision of City of Fort Collins staff regarding the assessment of Transportation Development Review Fees for the Lincoln Park development project. Specifically, the petitioner is appealing the decision to assess $12,618 for the applicable Transportation Development Review Fees which went into effect on January 1, 2006. The petitioner had requested that the City waive the fees since most of the required City review of the project had been completed prior to the adoption of the new fees. ZBA June 8, 2006 - Page 5 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The new fees for the review of the re -submittal of this project would amount to $25,236. The City Manager has agreed to waive half of the fees. The petitioner is appealing the assessment of the new fees. A staff memo will be presented to the Board. Staff Presentation: Staff read a letter of support of the waiver of the Transportation Development Review Fees from David Schaeffer. The Board will be wearing a "different hat" in their review of this appeal. Under the Land Use Code Section 2.11.1(B) 6, the Zoning Board of Appeals is the body designated to hear appeals of administrative decisions made by City staff. Barnes noted that in addition to Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, City staff members from the Engineering and Stormwater Utility (Sheri Wamhoff, Don Bachman & Jim Hibbard) are available to review the facts of the case and answer any questions posed by the Board. Applicant Participation: Jon Prouty, after many years of working on the development of the Lincoln Park Project (from the land purchase on November 1, 2001 through work on its associated access and street alignment issues with City staff) on June 15, 2005 submitted a development review plan. Work continued with staff on street alignment issues and regional/project related storm drainage problems. On October 11, 2005, a 90-day extension was requested and granted. With issues not resolved at January 4, 2006 a second 90-day extension was requested and denied since the Code does not allow additional extensions. At re -submittal, Prouty was assessed Transportation Development Review Fees (TDRF) of $25,236 that had become effective January 1, 2006. Prouty requested an administrative review by City staff who agreed the fees could be reduced to $12,618. Prouty is seeking a waiver of those $12,168 fees by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Prouty believes the policy of charging the TDRF up front and the rigidity of the Code in not allowing staff any flexibility in granting further extensions considering the circumstances of the case is unfair. He respectfully requests the Board waive the TDRF fees. Board Discussion: Sheri Wamhoff, Don Bachman and Jim Hibbard provided information from an Engineering and Stormwater staff perspective on the development review application, its complexities and how it progressed through its review. The Board determined delays were neither the fault of the applicant nor City staff but rather the unusual issues of the project (including drainage/retention issues and the need to seek agreement from Larimer County on mitigating impact to users in their jurisdiction.) The Board also believes the Code is too rigid with relation to timeframes and extension options available. Miscio made a motion to reduce the Transportation Development Review Fees in their entirety because the applicant was diligent in pursuing the project's development review process but as a result of extenuating circumstances including street alignment, storm water detention, and coordination required with Larimer County was delayed to a point when the newly implemented TDR fees were assessed and the applicant unfairly penalized. Dickson seconded the motion. ZBA June 8, 2006 - Page 6 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Miscio, Nays: Hall 6. Other Business: Board members reviewed the impact travel/vacation plans had on attendance at upcoming summer meetings. Pisula and Barnes will not be in attendance at the July meeting. Dickson will not be in attendance in August and Hall is planning time off in September. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Might Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator