Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/14/2006FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — September 14, 2006 8:30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (416-2355) 11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 Phone: (H) 224-4029 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 14, 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 Marcha Hill, 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 from the August 10, 2006 meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. Dickson abstained. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO. 2558 — Approved Address: 2842 Edinburgh Ct Petitioner: Richard Merlino Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(c) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 10.35' in order to allow the existing porch cover to be removed and replaced with a kitchen addition. The addition will extend almost 2' closer to the rear lot line than the existing porch cover. ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship See petitioner's letter Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted that this property is in the RL zone which requires a 15' rear setback. This lot has an irregular triangular shaped yard. The previous porch cover was at a 12' setback. The Applicant's proposal would create a setback of 10' at the closest point to the rear property line. The Applicant's submitted letter explains the sq.ft. of the lot. Applicant Participation: Richard Merlino of 2858 Edinburgh Ct stated that there was a hardship because of the pie shaped lot. The property had an existing noncompliant structure when he bought the house in 1990. Only one corner of the property would be impacted, with a difference of 21 sq.ft., which is visually shielded by a one story garden level which starts at 24" below grade. There were no neighbor complaints about the existing structures and the Applicant had the support of his neighbors. Merlino proposed that a variance be granted with an "Equal to or Better Than" reason. Merlino explained that if the proposed addition were moved to the west the kitchen expansion and family room would be cut off from the patio and that the addition would be attached to the bathroom. There were no grade modifications and the existing steps going down to the grade level would stay. Board Discussion: The Board discussed the pie shaped garden level lot and how the infringement would be less than 20 sq.ft. at the narrowest point. The Applicant's neighbors supported the variance. The Board agreed that this appeal was nominal and inconsequential. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2558 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. The reason for granting this variance is that only a corner of the addition would encroach onto the 15' rear setback area. The building is a garden level so it will not encroach much in height. This is a pie shaped lot which gives the building an odd placement on an odd shaped lot. There is lots of space between the back of the Applicant's lot to the house directly to the south. The neighbors directly surrounding the property support the variance. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2559 — Approved Address: 1122 W Mountain Ave Petitioner: Katie Cassis & Derek Hoffman Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 3 Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 6' to 5' in order to allow a 2nd story addition over the existing house and a one story addition on the back of the house. The new wall height of the west wall will be 20' which requires a 6' setback. The existing house is at a 5' setback and the second story will be built on top of the existing wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is an older, one-story house. The existing ceiling height of the house is 10', which makes it difficult, if not impossible to construct a second story with a wall height of 18' or less. There is no gable end on the west wall, so the roof has been designed to minimize the wall height as much as possible. Staff Comments: The existing wall height of 10' does make it difficult to construct a second story with an exterior wall height of less than 18'. There are other 2 story homes nearby, so the board could possibly consider this 1' setback reduction to be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes read two letters of support of this variance: one letter from the neighbor to the west and one letter from a neighbor at 120 Pearl St. Applicant Participation: Katie Cassis & Derek Hoffman addressed the Board. Hoffman stated that the current house has one bedroom upstairs and one bedroom downstairs. Their 2 year old is on a different floor than the parents and for safety they would prefer 3 bedrooms on the same level. If the proposed second story addition was eliminated and just a larger one story addition was added to the back of the house, the kitchen would be in the interior of the house and all the narrow lot landscape and yard improvements would be lost. Hoffman's neighbors have given him positive feedback about the proposed additions. Andy Rex, 2504 W Mulberry St, contractor, addressed the Board in favor of the proposed plans. The existing 10' ceilings create issues for an addition that would comply with zoning height ordinances, making the second story with 7' ceilings and weird window heights. Board Discussion The Board discussed the reasons for granting this variance under equal to or better than rationale or nominal and inconsequential rationale in regard to the rest of the neighborhood. The narrowness of the 40' lot creates somewhat of a hardship. The low roofline reduces the look of mass. The proposed additions preserve open space. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2559 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. As a result of previous data presented to the Board, the submitted addition proposal for this variance appears to be consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. The roof pitch allows less mass over the lower roof line. The proposal preserves open space in the back yard. Only 1' x 34' is not consistent with the Code. The 40' narrow lot width creates somewhat of a hardship for the Applicant. The neighbors support the variance. The Applicant must build as shown in this proposal for this variance. Hall seconded the motion. ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 4 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO. 2560 — Approved Address: 412 E Laurel St Petitioner: Curtis Amason Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area for this nonconforming lot from 4643 square feet to 4240 square feet in order to allow the rear lot line of 644 Peterson St to be moved about 6' to the east so that the deck on the back of 644 Peterson St no longer encroaches over the lot line of 412 E Laurel St. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is already nonconforming, less than 5000 sq.ft. The lot line adjustment is necessary in order to remedy the encroachment situation. No building setback or lot to floor area ratios will be violated by this adjustment. Staff Comments: Since no buildings will become nonconforming with respect to setbacks or lot area to floor area ratio and an encroachment problem will be resolved, the Board could possibly consider this to be nominal and inconsequential. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The 412 E Laurel St. house was originally part of the 644 Peterson St. lot and some time in the past was split off into a nonconforming lot. The applicant's deck was built on part of the Peterson lot. The deck is lower than 30" above grade making it a nonregulated structure not needing a building permit. As a nonregulated structure, the deck would not have to meet the required setbacks from property lines. The edge of the deck would be at 0' setback, but would not be nonconforming since the height is less than 30". Applicant Participation: Applicant Curt Amason, who resides at 219 S Loomis Ave., addressed the Board. Amason had owned the house at 644 Peterson St. for 25 years, but sold it to Tom Hobbs in 2005. Amason also purchased 412 E Laurel St., which is in the back yard, about 10 years ago. The previous seller of 412 E Laurel St. showed Amason a survey of the lot line boundaries. Amason had the fence and deck built 10 years ago according the information he had received from the previous owner. Amason is requesting a variance for goodwill for the neighborhood; for Tom Hobbs who purchased the Peterson house; and for the prospective buyer of the Laurel house. The Peterson house was sold with the deck being an important space of the property, since this is a corner lot with no back yard. While getting ready to sell 412 E Laurel, the bank required a survey done to determine the lot line between the 2 houses, and that's when the deck encroachment was discovered. Amason is making a good faith effort to correct the situation. Tom Hobbs, 644 Peterson, addressed the Board and was very much in favor of this variance. Hobbs stated that it would have been a good idea to have had a survey done when he purchased the house. However, given Amason's goodwill, Hobbs is anxious to resolve the situation. ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 5 Amason's neighbor, Steven Mack, came forward. Mack owns 420 E Laurel St. on the opposite side of the alley to the east side and also owns 651 Whedbee St. This is a common issue of non- conforming lots for these older neighborhoods in Old Town. Mack stated that what Amason was requesting was reasonable and consistent with the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Hall clarified that the minimum lot size requirement is 5,000 sq.ft. The appeal addresses a non- compliant situation which would become even less compliant. Barnes stated that this situation is called a nonregulated land transfer. Lot lines are allowed to be moved around without having to do a re -plat as long as a nonconforming situation is not created or the degree of a nonconforming situation is not increased. The lot at 412 E Laurel is already non- conforming in that it does not contain the minimum lot size of 5,000 sq.ft. By moving the lot line over 6.5 ft, the lot becomes even more nonconforming by increasing the degree of nonconformity. The lot then requires a variance. There is a new legal description in the packet of information. Miscio expressed his concerns about the sale of the property concerning the change of lot line in regards to the mortgage, title policy, and protection from liens. The property tax may also change because of the lot size changes. The Applicant informed Miscio there was not a mortgage involved. Hall commented that if the variance is granted that the residence on Laurel will be compliant. The house was built in 1923 and is currently being remodeled. The prospective buyer is aware of the new lot line situation and is okay with it. Donahue noted that the 412 E Laurel garage is not compliant and encroaches on a dedicated alley. Barnes stated that the noncompliant garage may be an Engineering Department issue, rather than a zoning issue. The 6' fence currently on the proposed lot line will not be changed. None of the property is physically changing; this is a change on paper. The Board discussed the reasoning behind granting this variance as to whether it would be nominal and inconsequential or a hardship. Nominal and inconsequential is a supportable reason, because the neighborhood stays the same and no one is impacted by the change. The hardship involved because of the encroachment and the Peterson buyer not getting what he paid for. The variance was being requested to correct a problem and not for financial gain. Eckman noted that there was an existing hardship because the Laurel property could not be sold without moving the fence and cutting off half of the deck on the Peterson property. These were unusual circumstances where there is a trespass on one lot by another lot that was never intended to be. This makes the present Laurel lot un-saleable until this matter is resolved. And it makes the Peterson lot a point of great contention unless this matter is determined. This situation was unforeseen and not premeditated. There would be no detriment to the public good by fixing this situation on paper so it does not have to be fixed in court. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2560 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and under the standards for nominal and inconsequential, 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. The Board finds the reasoning for this nominal and inconsequential variance because there is no physical change to the property or to the neighborhood. A problem that exists on paper is being corrected. In addition, there is a strong hardship issue which exists that also ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 6 would be remedied. The hardship exists due to the fact that a portion of the property that has been purchased is not what the buyer paid for. The fence and deck on the subject property encroaches on the adjoining property. Under these conditions the property is un-saleable. There is no economic gain to be gotten from the approval of this variance, and in essence a problem is being corrected. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None APPEAL NO. 2561 —Approved Address: 615 LaPorte Ave Petitioner: Matthew Cooperman Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(3)and (4) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the alley from 5' to 4' 2", and reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5' to 3' 2" for a new storage building that is currently under construction at the rear of the lot. Due to a misunderstanding with the builder, the building construction commenced in a different location than what was shown on the building permit that was recently issued. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes referred the Board to the petitioner's letter explaining his justifications for granting this variance. Barnes also read 2 letters from the Applicant's neighbors in support of the variance. The first letter read was from Nicholas Hoyer, owner of 611 LaPorte Ave. The second letter read was from Michael and Dion Bundy, 617 LaPorte Ave. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The pictures also showed other buildings along the alley that were actually closer to the alley than the Applicant's building. The site plan submitted for the building permit was reviewed as having a 5' setback from the rear and from the side. However, the contractor did not build according to the site plan. The Building Department does not typically inspect the setbacks; they normally rely on the engineer's site plans. There is a hold on the Letter of Completion pending the resolution of the setback. The problem is that it is hard to tell where the lot line is along the alley. The gravel drivable portion of the alley is defined, but the alley extends on both sides, and may be grown up in weeds and the property line is unclear. Applicant Participation: Matthew Cooperman, 615 LaPorte Ave, addressed the Board. Cooperman stated that the project was initiated to solve a problem with the structure that was previously there. Cooperman had numerous conversations with Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation. It was determined the garage could not be saved because of snow damage from the big storm a few years ago. Cooperman hired Custom Design and Storage Sheds to build the new garage to be in compliance with all Codes. There were some miscommunications within the contractor's company. The building plans were not delivered to the site with the materials. The building went up in a different location than where it should have been built. This building has doors and 4 windows. The building ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 7 is very heavy and not easy to be moved without structural problems. The contractor placed the new building on the existing foundation of the previous garage. Cooperman noted that his neighbor, Nicholas Hoyer, had no reservations about the new structure, saying that it looks better, especially since the overgrown weeds are gone. This building is the exact same 12'x24' size in basically the same location on the original concrete slab footprint. The builders thought that the garage should abut the fence and situated the building closer to the alley by 10 inches. The Applicant was unaware that the previous structure was noncompliant. Miscio commended Cooperman's honesty in trying to correct a situation caused by his contractor. Miscio inquired whether a nonconforming structure being torn down and replaced would require a variance. Barnes noted that a variance is not always required. The Code on nonconforming buildings allows them to be rebuilt if they are damaged by some natural catastrophe. A permit must be obtained within 6 months and rebuilt within 12 months. Or, a City building inspector would have to go out at the owner's request to determine whether the building is unsafe. Such a determination would allow a building to be rebuilt at those existing setbacks without a variance. Cooperman stated that the original building only had a 15 degree roof slope. There was some cracking on the major beams across the width of the building that probably happened during the big snows. The roof was not in good shape and there was also structural damage. Board Discussion: Hall commented that it would have been nice if the existing structure was still there and had not yet been replaced, because now the Board had to make assumptions. The Board discussed the reasons for granting this variance. There was a nonrepairable existing structure that was replaced with something equal to or better than the previous structure which may have been a hazard. The nominal and inconsequential reason was discussed because there was a building already there and the new structure does not impact the neighborhood in that there are other nonconforming buildings along the alley. The Board did not think that it met the definition for hardship. The new structure was the same size of the previous structure and has used an existing concrete slab for the footprint. The neighbors support the variance. The new structure has a nominal change to the rear setback, but is less compliant to the alleyway by 8-10 inches. There are no changes to the side yard setback. The side yard setback does not increase the degree of noncompliance. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2561 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the nominal and inconsequential standard the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards if the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. It will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The reason this Board finds this variance is nominal or inconsequential is first that the approval of the variance is within the context of the neighborhood, because there are other structures that appear to be nonconforming along the alley. Second, the Applicant is replacing an existing building with no change in the side yard setback and a nominal change in the rear setback. The new building is a safer building which means it is not detrimental to the public good. The new building is on the same foundation and footprint as was the prior structure. The Board is approving the variance as presented. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page S Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 7. APPEAL NO. 2562 — Approved with conditions Address: 948 LaPorte Ave Petitioner: Steve Whittall Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5,000 square feet to 4,727 square feet in order to allow a new home to be constructed on this vacant lot which already exists at the nonconforming size of 4,727 square feet. The new construction will comply with all setback regulations and lot area to floor area ratios. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This lot has been in existence for many years, and even has a curb stop for water utility service. Therefore, it has been recognized as a buildable lot for some time. When lots 16 and 17 were divided into 3 lots, this particular parcel ended up with less than 5,000 square feet of lot area, and without a variance is no longer buildable. The proposed home and garage comply with all other requirements, so even though the lot is smaller than the required, the new construction will be less than the maximum allowed. Staff Comments: This is an existing situation. Without a variance, nothing can be built on this buildable lot. If the Board moves to grant this variance, a condition that the construction must comply with the plans submitted (or at least with the location and size of building submitted) might be appropriate. Staff Presentation: Barnes noted that frequently in these older neighborhoods, especially on corner lots that have been split to build another house on the rear, that setback and lot area nonconforming situations are created. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The original lot was over 15,000 sq.ft. and included what is now 208 West St, 950 LaPorte Ave, and 948 LaPorte Ave. If the original lot would have been divided equally, the Code would have allowed 3 structures to be built. There are 2-story homes in the neighborhood. Within a 1-1/2 block radius there are 13 other lots that have existing houses on them where the lots are less than 5,000 sq.ft. and actually have less square footage than the subject lot. Applicant Participation: Steve Whittall, By Design Homes, 4812 S College Ave, addressed the Board. Whittall stated that the house at 208 West St was moved to the parcel in 1965. The house was previously located where the post office is now. 3 parcels were created years ago out of the original 15,000 square foot parcel. The lot at 948 LaPorte came out with less than 5,000 sq.ft. but was set up as a buildable lot with dedicated easements, curb stop, water tap and sewer service. Property taxes have been paid for 65 years with 948 LaPorte as a buildable parcel. Whittall commented that the square footage of the lot at 948 LaPorte creates a hardship. Granting this variance serves Fort Collins well by infilling a lot that was an unused weed patch; creates a permit ready lot; and generates revenue for the City. The 50' frontage and home Whittal has designed for the lot corresponds with other homes in the neighborhood. ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 9 The Code stipulates that a permit must be obtained within 6 months from the date of a variance. Whittall requested that a 6 month extension can be granted. Barnes read the Ordinance concerning the time length of the approved variances. "Any variance which applies to the issuance of a building permit shall expire 6 months after the date that such variance was granted unless all necessary permits have been obtained. Providing, however, that for good cause shown, the Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a longer term if such longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. But in no event shall the period of time for obtaining all necessary permits under variance exceed 12 months in length." Miscio inquired whether the lot was zoned for a new single family or duplex residence. Barnes stated that the lot is zoned NCM which allows up to a 4-plex building, but would have to meet the lot area to floor area ratio, which is 2 to 1 in this zone. The maximum floor area would be 4,727 divided by 2, which is 2,364. Miscio asked Whittall if he intended to build a single family home. Whittall said it was his intent to build a single family home, but did not want to be limited to that. Board Discussion: The Board discussed reasons for granting the variance, the lot size, and infrastructure already in place. If the variance was not granted that possibly it might be detrimental to the public good by causing more sprawl somewhere else rather than infill. Barnes noted that even though the NCM Zone allows for 3-4 plexes, the square footage for these is 6,000 sq.ft. of lot area. This variance would be limited to single family or duplex. Barnes read the legal notice that went out to the neighborhood property owners. "The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5,000 sq.ft. to 4,727 sq.ft. in order to allow a new home to be constructed on the vacant lot." Barnes interprets this appeal as for a variance allowing a single family dwelling not a duplex. Eckman recommended adding the single family dwelling limitation to the record, based on the notice given to the neighbors. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2562 for the following reasons. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the hardship reason there are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal. There was a nonregulated land transfer that occurred many years ago which created this hardship of the lot being 4,727 sq.ft. which is 273 sq.ft. less than the minimum 5,000 sq.ft. required for a buildable lot. There is infrastructure existing to support the construction of a dwelling on the site. Granting this variance would promote infill of the neighborhood, continuing the spirit of the residential neighborhood, which the Board views as positive. If the variance is not granted, the lot will sit vacant and could become a weed problem. The Board is adding the condition that this lot be built with a single family dwelling due to the small size of the lot. The Board is allowing the applicant a 12 month time frame in which to apply for a building permit, with the new construction complying with all the current Code requirements. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None ZBA September 14, 2006 - Page 10 8. Other Business: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. �Bght Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator