Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/13/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — March 13, 2008 8:45 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 IlChairperson: Dwight Hall 11 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning a.m. in the Council Chambers o Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Bello Ronald Daggett Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride Jim Pisula David Shands EXCUSED ABSENCES: None Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 8:45 f the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Suess, 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 February 14, 2008 meeting. Dickson seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Abstain: Daggett 3. APPEAL NO. 2603 - APPROVED Address: 720 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Meg Dunn Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(5) Background: The variance will increase the allowed maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in the rear half of the lot from the .25 to .42 in order to accommodate a 410 square foot second story addition. The addition is proposed to be located only above the rear portion of the existing home. The front half of the home will remain as is. ZBA March 13, 2008— Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: A hardship may exist due to the shallowness of the lot resulting from the earlier lot split. Since the applicant can construct a 2nd floor addition on the front portion of the home without a variance, but has elected instead to do the addition over the rear portion in order to be compatible with other homes on the block, the Board may find that this is "equal to or better than" Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The intent of the floor area ratio (FAR) maximum is to limit the amount of building floor area that occurs in the rear half of lots. The FAR in the NCL zone is .25. That means that no more than one-fourth of the lot area in the rear half of the lot can be floor area. The subject lot originally extended to the alley. It was split off, and there is now another parcel between the subject lot and the alley. The total floor area would be 1,958 square feet if this variance is approved. Applicant's Participation: Meg Dunn, 720 West Oak Street. The applicant stated that there are two hardships: the first being they don't have a full lot and the second that the 700 block of West Oak was built later than the rest of the neighborhood and the houses were constructed further back on the lot, pushing their property over the 50% mark of the lot line. Bello asked the applicant why they had elected to put the addition on the back of the house rather than the front. The applicant responded she felt a front addition would change the character of the house and the neighborhood. Bello asked if the applicant had communicated with the neighbors regarding the addition. The applicant responded that two of the neighbors were present, that she had sent a side view picture of the proposed addition to the neighbors, and the responses to date have been positive. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Dickson said it was her opinion that the variance is an equal to or better justification than building at the front of the house. Hall suggested that there is also a hardship justification because of the shallowness of the lot. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal 2603 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the equal to or better than justification, the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to ensure that the rear half of lots in the old town area are not overbuilt. 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 reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because the addition at the back of the house will make this home more compatible with other homes on the block, and is better than constructing the 2nd floor addition on the front half of the home, which can be done without a variance. Additionally, there are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal as follows: the fact that the house is set back so far from the front property line and the shallowness of the lot make it difficult for the applicant to do this remodel and keep the construction to the front half of the lot. Because of the foregoing unique conditions, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicantlowner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant/owner. The unique conditions coupled with the strict application of the standards sought to be varied result in the practical difficulties or hardship because of the shallowness of the lot and the setback of the home on the lot. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved. ZBA March 13, 2008—Page 3 Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2604 - APPROVED Address: 625 Armstrong Avenue Petitioner: Virginia Purvis Zone: NCL Section: 4.7 fl(1)(c) Background: The variance will allow a garage addition to the front of the existing garage to protrude 8 feet beyond the front of the house instead of being recessed at least 10' behind the front of the home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This property is in a subdivision that was not developed in a manner similar to the old town neighborhoods for which this regulation was intended (i.e. the character of the intended neighborhoods consists of alleys, longer and narrower lots, and narrower homes). This is a wide lot with a wide home, and no abutting alley. The side setbacks of the existing home are not large enough to accommodate a driveway on the side of the house, and since there is no rear alley, there would be no way a garage can be accessed other than by means of a front -loaded driveway. The existing garage is a one -car garage, and the owner would like to construct an addition in order to have a two -car garage, similar to other homes in the area. This subdivision has a 2 hour parking limit for on -street parking, so it is necessary that the driveway and garage be large enough to accommodate off-street parking for the residents. The minimum front yard setback requirement in this zone is 15 feet, and even with the protruding garage the building will have a setback of 27.8 feet, well in excess of the minimum required. Staff Comments: The intent of the code provision is to preserve the predominant streetscape character of old town neighborhoods, which consists of either front loaded garages that are located slightly behind the house and accessed by a driveway on the side of the home, or rear loaded garages that are accessed from an alley. This home is in the Mantz subdivision which, while it is in an old town zone, is a much newer subdivision than is normally found in the zone. The subdivision was constructed without alleys, and with lots which are shallower than many of the old lots. Additionally, the home on this lot is a wide home which does not leave room on the side for a driveway to access a recessed garage. And since there is no alley, the only way to access the existing garage as well as the proposed garage addition is by means of a front -loaded driveway with no opportunity to recess the garage. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. NCL, NCM and VCB zones have a standard that requires either attached or detached garages to be recessed at least ten feet behind the front of the house. The intent of that provision is to maintain the character of the streetscape and the character of older neighborhoods where generally there are alley access garages or rear detached garages accessed from the street with a long driveway along the side of the house. The Mantz subdivision was constructed in the 50's and 60's, and there are no alleys and no opportunity for alley access garages. The homes in this subdivision are wide, leaving almost no space for a driveway alongside the house. The applicant is also constructing an addition to the front of the house. Although the proposed garage will protrude 22 feet beyond the existing garage, it will only protrude 8 feet beyond the new addition of the house. Hall asked if there are similar garage restrictions in other zoning districts. Barnes replied that other than the NCL, NMC and NCB zones, all developments approved prior to March 28, 1997 will allow flush or protruding garages. Developments approved later than March 28, 1997 are subject to the ZBA March 13, 2008— Page 4 land use code which requires garage doors to be recessed at least 4 feet behind the front wall of the building. Applicant's Presentation: Virginia Purvis, 625 Armstrong Avenue. The applicant stated that she has lived in the home for over 30 years, has spoken with all of her neighbors, and they are excited about the addition to her home. Audience Participation: None. Bello asked if the applicant had considered expanding the width of the existing garage. Purvis responded that they are expanding to the north as far as possible. There is an 8 foot setback in that location. Part of the existing garage will be turned into a bathroom and the remainder will be a two car garage. Pisula asked if the applicant had considered moving the front of the garage back to 30 feet to conform to the setback requirement. Barnes responded the setback is 15 feet, but that most of the houses are at a 30 foot setback because that's what the code required. Everyone in the neighborhood could now build an addition to the front of their house. Board Discussion: Hall stated that a 10 foot garage setback is not necessary in this situation and that this addition would maintain the character of the streetscape. McBride stated that he felt the justification was equal to or better than. McBride made a move to approve appeal 2597 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal as follows: the width of the house prohibits the construction of a driveway along its side. Because of the foregoing unique conditions, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant/owner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant/owner. The unique conditions coupled with the strict application of the standards sought to be varied result in the practical difficulties or hardship because with the configuration of the house on the lot, the only logical location for this garage is in front of it. Additionally, the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to maintain the character of the streetscape and the historic character of the older homes where generally there are alley access garages or rear detached garages accessed from the street with a long driveway along the side of the house. This subdivision was not built with historical preservation of the old town area in mind. Also, 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 complied with the standard for which the variance is requested. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because the garage would be in keeping with the character of the streetscape and the garage would still meet the overall setback requirements for the neighborhood. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: 5. APPEAL NO. 2605—TABLED TO APRIL 10, 2008 MEETING Address: 501 N. Shields St Petitioner: Leah Bishop Zone: NCL Section: 3.8.11(C) (1) and (4) ZBA March 13, 2008— Page 5 Background: The variance will allow a fence in the front yard to be taller than 4 feet and to be located within the line -of -sight triangle. Specifically, the variance will allow the recently constructed 5 foot tall front yard fence to remain in its current location, and allow for the construction of a matching 5 foot tall fence along the north lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property is a corner lot at the intersection of Sycamore and Shields. Shields is a major arterial street, which carries a large volume of traffic at a higher than normal residential neighborhood speed. The 5 foot tall fence helps to buffer the visual and audio impacts of the street. The fence is a very attractive fence, which is more aesthetically pleasing than a normal 4 feet tall picket fence. The pickets are only 4 feet tall, and the top portion of the fence has an open design. Therefore, it satisfies the intent of the code equally well along a street. Shields Street is elevated above the height of this lot, therefore, even though the fence is in the line -of -sight triangle, motorists are able to see over the top of the fence. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. Front yard fences are limited to 4 feet in height. At the front wall of the house, the fence can go up to six feet. The two parts to the variance request are (1) to allow the existing fence to exceed 4 feet in height in the front yard; and (2) to allow a portion of the existing fence to remain in the line of site triangle. The purpose of the line of site triangle is to stop automobiles far enough behind the curb to be able to see beyond the fence. Shields Street is elevated above the height of the lot. Barnes read a letter from the neighbor at 503 N. Shields Street, John Hahn, stating that he approved of the construction of the matching 5 foot tall fence along the north lot line at 501 N. Shields Street. Hall asked if fencing is permitted in the line of site triangle area. Barnes replied that you can have either a 42" maximum height split rail fence as long as there is 12 inches between the horizontal members or a fence that is not split rail in nature is limited to 32 inches in height. Permits are not required for fences, but the fence that is already there does not meet code. Dickson asked that if the fence were to legally stay without the variance, would it have to be 32 inches high to be in that line of sight. Barnes responded that just the portion in the line of site triangle could be no more than 32" high. Dickson then asked where the grade starts. Barnes responded that it's at the original grade of the lot directly under the fence. Dickson said it appears that although Shields is elevated, Sycamore is not. That is correct. Pisula asked how this matter came before the board. Barnes responded that a city employee noticed the fence height. Applicant's Participation: Leah Bishop, 501 North Shields Street. The applicant stated that she purchased the property in August of 2000. She stated that she brought a Power Point presentation to show the privacy challenges she faces at that property. Her efforts to start the presentation failed on the City computer. It could only be viewed on her personal laptop which she had with her. Eckman stated her choice was to table the variance, pass the computer to each of the board members for viewing, or have the photos printed while the final variance was heard before she continued her presentation to the board. He also advised the applicant that the electronic data or photos would need to be made part of the record today. The applicant stated there were approximately 50 photos. She felt it was important for the board to see the photos and agreed that the variance should be tabled. Hall made a motion to table Appeal No . 2605 to the April 10, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. McBrided seconded the motion. The motion was approved. ZBA March 13, 2008— Page 6 Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: 6. APPEAL NO. 2606 — APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 319/321 N. Whitcomb Street Petitioner: Peter and Colleen Scholz Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(D)(1), 4.8(E)(1) and (4) Background. The variance will reduce the required lot area from 5000 square feet to 4900 square feet and the required lot Width from 40 feet to 35 feet for lots 8 and 9, Block 273, West Side Addition, and reduce the required side yard setback along the new south lot line of the existing home at 321 Whitcomb from 5 feet to 4'10" in order to allow the existing one parcel of land (on which the home at 321 N. Whitcomb is located) to be split into two separate parcels. Each resulting parcel would be 35 feet wide and contain 4900 square feet, and would thereby revert back to the size of the lots as originally platted, and would be of the same dimensions as most of the other lots on the block. Re-establishing the original lot line will result in the existing house having a side setback of 4'10" from the lot line instead of the required 5 feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The Board has granted similar variances in the past to allow the original lot lines to be re-established. Some have been granted with a condition limiting the size or height of the home on the newly created vacant lot. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The area was originally platted with 35 foot lots. Years ago, a previous owner combined the two lots into one parcel. The legal description of that parcel is lot 8 and lot 9, so those two originally platted lots make up one parcel for tax purposes. If the variance is approved, there is a possibility someone could purchase lot 8 and obtain a building permit to build a house there. The other part of the variance is that when the lot line between lot 8 and lot 9 is re-established, the house will then be 4'10" from the property line, as opposed to the required 5' setback. Bello asked if the slight extension from the house is within the setback. Barnes stated it was and would probably have to be removed. Shands asked if these once legal lots became not legal with the passing of the ordinance that changed the lot width requirement. Barnes replied that for a time any lot area or lot width less than a certain percentage of the new requirement was grandfathered by the code, and a variance was not required. There were some abuses. The code was changed, and the result was that no automatic reductions were allowed to lot area or lot width. The board now deals with those variances on a case -by -case basis. Hall asked about the types of abuses. Barnes responded there was overbuilding and construction of higher density uses than would normally be seen in the neighborhood. Hall asked if a duplex was allowed in the NCM zone. Barnes responded that a building as large as a 4-plex is allowed. Applicant's Participation: Peter and Colleen Scholz, 321 N. Whitcomb Street. The applicants said if they were granted the variance, they would remove the little porch that extends from the house so that it was within the 4'10" variance request. Audience Participation: None. Hall asked if their intent was to split off the lot and sell it. Scholz responded that was the intent. Shands asked if they thought lot 8 was a separate lot at the time of purchase. Scholz replied that they were aware they were purchasing lots 8 and 9, but felt it was one property in the assessor's ZBA March 13, 2008— Page 7 records. McBride asked if there would still be a replat requirement. Barnes responded no because the lot lines are still on the plat. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: McBride felt it should be a nominal and inconsequential justification. Hall asked if that would also be true if a 4-plex were constructed at that location. Dickson stated that placing conditions on the approval might be warranted. Hall stated that the condition would be that only a single family dwelling could be built and asked the applicants if they would be agreeable to that condition. The applicants stated they would be agreeable to that condition. Barnes added that it can be nominal and inconsequential if taken in the context of the neighborhood if it is limited to a single family dwelling. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal 2606 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the granting would be nominal and inconsequential as a single family dwelling in the context of the neighborhood. A condition is placed on the granting of this variance that only the construction of a single family dwelling would be allowed on lot 8. The lot area in the context of the neighborhood is inconsequential because it is 2% under the required square footage for a lot. The lot width from 40 feet to 35 feet and the lot area from 5000 square feet to 4900 square feet is inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood which has many homes on 35 foot wide and 4900 square foot lots. The side yard setback from 5 feet to 4'10" is also nominal. Pisula seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: 10. Other Business: The election of officers was held. McBride made a motion for Hall to act as chairperson in 2008. Dickson made a motion for McBride to act as vice -chairperson in 2008. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: Meeting adjourned at 10:07 a.m. _BvfrgtiTPtatt, Chairper on Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator