HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/08/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — February 8, 2007
8:45 a.m.
11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (416-2355) II
Chairperson: Dwight Hall
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 8:45
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
Robert Donahue
Dwight Hall
Dana McBride
Jim Pisula
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andy Miscio
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:
Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 14, 2006 meeting. Daggett
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Pisula
Nays:
3. APPEAL NO. 2567 — Approved
Address: Blocks 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, Trailhead Development
Petitioner: Cathy Mathis for VF Ripley
Zone: LMN
Section: 3.5.2(D)(3)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side yard setback from 5' to 0' along the interior side lot
lines of the interior lots in Blocks 12-15 and 17 of the Trail Head development. This setback
reduction would apply only to the proposed alley -accessed detached garages in the rear portion of
these lots. Each lot will have a detached garage with a zero setback along one side lot line and an
ZBA February 8, 2007—Page 2
18' setback from the other side lot line. The houses will continue to comply with the required 5'
side yard setback from each side lot line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments:
This development is in a zone that permits zero lot line setbacks for such uses as single-family
detached dwellings and single-family attached dwellings. A variance is requested at this time since
the specific lot layout was not presented with the original development plan application. If it had
been, it would have been reviewed at that time. Since the plan has now been recorded, and the
applicant proposes something different from what was approved, a variance is required. This
variance request involves numerous lots and establishes a certain residential character for the 4
blocks involved. Therefore, staff believes it satisfies the purpose of the LMN district standards,
which in part is to provide a "variety of housing choices".
Staff Presentation:
Barnes informed the Board that on February 7, the applicant asked that Block 17 be included in the
variance request. He told the applicants if they obtained written documents from affected property
owners that waived the seven day notification requirement, the Board could consider the additional
block (Block 17) at their February 8`h meeting. It was confirmed that all affected property owners
agreed to the waiver.
Hall made a motion to accept inclusion of Block 17 in the variance request. Donahue seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Pisula
Nays:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. This setback reduction would apply to all blocks
with alley -accessed detached garages in the rear portion of their lots. The proposal is to have a
detached garage with a zero setback along one side lot line and an 18' setback from the other side
lot line. This development is in a zone that permits zero lot line setbacks for such uses as single-
family detached dwellings and single-family attached dwellings. Elevation drawings of what the
garages will look like are on page 3 of the architectural renderings.
Applicant Participation:
Developer Ken Crum, 721 Waterglen Drive explained the reason Block 17 was not included in the
original variance request was due to an oversight of the planning company. It was always his
intention to ask for the variance for all alley loaded homes —a total of 49. Further, planning a
development is an evolutionary process. It's important to note that after all the lots had been fully
developed as relates to infrastructure for water, electric, cable and phone; he saw an opportunity to
create larger yards (openings that promoted more open space, light and ventilation) by grouping
each property's 2 bay garage with the adjacent property. So rather than have each garage with a
5 foot side yard setback there would be larger openings. He believed it would be an improvement
considering the lots are long (100 feet) and narrow.
Pisula asked if there would be a wall that separated the garages. Yes, essentially there would be
two fire rated walls. Hall wondered how two property owners managed the one structure. Crum
responded that today there are many developments with common garages. Once you move away
from garages in the front, you're open to many possibilities. Further, the homeowners' association
ZBA February 8, 2007—Page 3
covenants controlled issues related to the common walls, maintenance, and what would be
allowed in the area of the garages and their 8 foot driveway.
Board Discussion:
Hall asked what the intent of the Code relative to 5 foot setbacks. Barnes said the five feet is
meant to provide open space, light and ventilation. The LNM zone, however, permits zero lot line
setbacks for such uses as single-family detached dwellings and single-family attached dwellings to
provide a "variety of housing choices".
Donahue believes the revised proposal does reinforce the intent of the Code otherwise you'd end
up with small strips of land.
Hall wondered if more space was made available would the individual property owners be able to
request additional structures (i.e. a 3-car garage instead of a 2-car garage). Yes, possibly.
McBride asked what would preclude someone from parking in that extra space on the non -zero
setback side of the garage. Crum responded that it would be tightly controlled by the covenant and
with parking available in front of the home and on the 8 foot garage driveway it was unlikely
additional parking spaces would be needed.
Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2567 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 redesigned plan eliminates the dead
space between garages and creates open space and lines of vision that enhance the
development. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Pisula
Nays:
4. Other Business: None.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
-PJ'wight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator