Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/10/2006FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — August 10, 2006 8:30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 10, 2006 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 Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Dickson 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: Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes the motion. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO. 2554 —Approved with Condition Address: 945 W. Mountain Petitioner: Jim Falloon Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(4) from the June 8, 2006 meeting. Daggett seconded 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 appeal was originally heard on June 8, 2006. The Board tabled the appeal in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to present additional evidence regarding the height and setback of ZBA August 10, 2006 -Page 2 other 2 story homes in the immediate area that may have nonconforming setbacks. The applicant has gathered additional information and the appeal is now scheduled to be heard again at the August 10, 2006 meeting. This is a corner lot with a parkway along the street which gives the appearance the lot is larger, thereby the affect of the lot area to floor area variance is nominal. There are other 2 story homes nearby, the roof line is only being raised by 4.75', the proposed design maintains the craftsman style, the side setback along Mack is existing, 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. The applicant has submitted neighborhood data illustrating other similar situations in the area. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The applicant has provided a plat map indicating the properties on their block and in the neighborhood west of them that are two story homes whose setbacks are non -conforming. Those properties include: 901, 1001 and 1003 W. Mountain and 922, 928, 1028 1030 and 1034 W. Oak. Two of those properties have been granted variances when a part of their building height exceeded eighteen feet. Barnes provided a drawing that shows what portion of their proposed structure would be taller than 18 feet. Applicant Participation: Jim Falloon of 945 W. Mountain stated that he and his family have been residents of the neighborhood for 16 years. In addition, over a 10 year period, they have considered design elements that would increase space and preserve the historic and aesthetic character of their craftsman style bungalow. Falloon reviewed the 2-story, non -conforming setback information he collected and concluded their proposed design is not the tallest structure nor the property with the smallest setback. Everyone in their neighborhood is in favor of the proposal with many signing a petition to formalize that support. When queried by the Chair, neighbors Jaime Haggard, 934 W. Mountain and Julie Geiman of 1001 W. Mountain stepped forward to support the project. They believe the proposal preserves the character of the neighborhood, it is not going "outside the box" and if approved would add to the character of their neighborhood. Board Discussion: Hall reviewed the discussion of the June 81h meeting. The floor to lot area ratio, the corner lot and parkway on the west setback are more palatable than the east side where the addition of a second floor moves away even more from the setback requirements. Pisula noted, from the information provided by the applicant, that of the 52 lots, 20% have an issue with building heights and non- conforming setbacks. Miscio believes this proposal is consistent with other structures/character of the neighborhood. Miscio asked for a review of the cases for which variances had been granted. Barnes briefly reviewed the specifics of the two variances that were previously approved for nearby properties. Miscio and Pisula supported granting the variance with a nominal and inconsequential justification. Hall had reservations —not enough space in back to add there, already non -conforming, and (while design beautiful and indicates a tremendous amount of effort,) he has concerns about the house ZBA August 10, 2006 -Page 3 being too big for the lot. Barnes noted at their June 8'h meeting —they believed a justification of nominal and inconsequential was reasonable if data was available that indicated it was appropriate. Falloon highlighted the number of homes in their area that have 2nd stories and are non -conforming as relates to setbacks. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2554 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 there are a number of properties in the neighborhood with second stories and non- conforming setbacks, the neighborhood is eclectic and this proposal is in the current range of what exists in the neighborhood, it's a corner lot so impact is not as significant as if it were not. The approval in conditioned on the construction following the drawings as submitted with this particular application. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Donahue 4. APPEAL NO. 2556 —Approved Address: 1122 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Dennis Sovick 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 3 to 1 down to 2.76 to 1 in order to allow the construction of a 316 square foot second floor addition/attic remodel. The total square footage of the house and existing garage will then be 2444 square feet instead of the maximum allowed 2289 square feet. The variance would also reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 4' in order to allow the construction of a 2 story, 12' wide cantilever and dormer addition. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The detached garage/office accessory building was built prior to the current standards thus the proposed second bedroom addition of the principal building causes the additional 215 square feet above the maximum permitted. The house will only be a 2 bedroom, 1384 square foot house when completed. The Historic Preservation Office desires the cantilever addition to be designed as submitted. The applicant originally submitted a permit application that complied with the setback requirements, however, the redesign to satisfy the desires of Historic Preservation results in the need for a variance. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes referenced letters from Jane Kneller & Michael Losonsky, 1116 W. Mountain in opposition to the variance; from Kathleen Willard, 1114 W. Mountain in favor of the variance; and from Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner in support of the proposal. A variance would not have been required except for the property owner agreeing to the Historic Preservation request for a 12 foot wide cantilever and dormer addition to ZBA August 10, 2006 -Page 4 preserve the architectural integrity of the hipped classic cottage. The home is not designated as a historic landmark building. Applicant Participation: Dennis Sovick spoke to the concerns raised by the neighbors at 1116 W. Mountain in opposition to the proposal. The building in the back part of the lot is a garage with a second story studio that was built some time ago by the previous owners. Construction could have proceeded without a variance except for the change requested by Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner which they are happy to facilitate to honor the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. All they are trying to do is carve out a second bedroom on the 2"' floor. They will not be increasing the lot's footprint except for the cantilever. The historic streetscape will remain. Ken Stockon, owner of the property read a letter from his wife in support of the project. Board Discussion: The board agreed a variance should be granted. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2556 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 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 bulk of the addition is within the perimeter of the current structure and the peak is minor in terms of the extension of the roof that forms the peak —it's unobtrusive. The floor area is mostly within the confines of the existing structure. Also there is a hardship because a variance would not have been required except for the request made by Historic Preservation. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO. 2557 —Approved with Condition Address: 413 S. Whitcomb Street Petitioner: Berin Wachsmann, Marcus Valdez, Tomas Herrera Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot width from 40' to 35' at the part of the lot where a proposed house is planned to be constructed. The rear portion of the lot is 40' wide, but the front part of the lot is only 35' wide. The petitioners desire to construct the house in the front part of the lot so that it will be in character with the location of the other houses on the block. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposal satisfies the code equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the code. Since the lot is large enough to accommodate a house, placing the one house that is allowed at the front of the lot is better than placing it in the rear portion of the lot. Since the side setback requirements are met, the width reduction is also nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. ZBA August 10, 2006 -Page 5 Staff Comments: The intent of the lot width requirement in part is to ensure that lots are wide enough to accommodate houses in a manner that ensures adequate spacing between homes. The lot width compliments the setback requirements. This proposal would seem to satisfy the intent of the code since the setbacks are met and the home is only 1 story. The Board may want to consider a condition that the house be limited to 1 story. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Currently the lot is vacant. Originally the lots had been 35 feet wide but it has been split up in various configurations. Code requires 40 feet lots. The width requirement comes into play primarily with regard to placement of the principal building. The application is proposing a one story building on that portion of the lot that is 35 feet wide and in line with other homes on that street. Applicant Participation: Marcus Valdez, 2618 Brownstone Court will be one of the owners of the lot with the closing scheduled for Monday, August 14. An LLC (Limited Liability Company) will own the property and it is their intent, that a partner of the LLC will live in it. If that does not work out, they're also considering selling the home as a spec house to a single family resident. Board Discussion: Hall and Donahue believed it was better to place the home closer to the front since setbacks have been met and it doesn't seem to be creating negative impacts. Setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood. Miscio thought a bit of a hardship had been created due to the configuration of the lot and they're ability to comply with the code. He believes placement is better in front and meets the spirit of the code. Hall and Pisula believe the variance is acceptable with an equal to or better than justification. Without a variance, it would be forced to the back of the lot and not be a part of the urban fabrictcompatible with the neighborhood. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2557 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, it is better to have the home in the front portion of the lot since it would be in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood. Placing the home in the rear of the lot, which is where it would have to be if the variance is denied, might actually be detrimental to the public good. It meets setbacks even with a 35 foot portion of the lot. The motion contained a condition that the house be limited to one story. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 6. Other Business: Starting the week of August 14, the Land Use Code (LUC) Staff Team will be having weekly meetings to consider proposals for changes to the LUC in time for City Council's Fall review. In light of the frequency of variances for lot area to floor area reductions, Barnes would be putting forth a proposal to consider a change to the Floor to Lot Area Ratio for the NCL zone. Barnes asked if the Board had any other areas they would like staff team to consider in their review/recommendations to City Council. Hall suggested exploring a change to the limitation on the size of auxiliary buildings. Specifically, the Board has routinely granted variances to allow ZBA August 10, 2006 -Page 6 detached buildings to be larger than 800 square feet on lots that are considerably larger than the average size lot. There should be some correlation to the lot size. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. /� /3 �B fight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator