Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/13/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — December 13, 2007 8:30 a.m. 11Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson I1Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) II 11Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 8:30 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 Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Jim Pisula EXCUSED ABSENCES: None 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 November 8, 2007 meeting. McBride seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None Abstain: Dickson 3. APPEAL NO. 2593 - APPROVED Address: 526 S. College Avenue Petitioner: Bud Frick Zone: CC Section: 3.2.1(E)(4)(b), 3.2.2(J) Background: The variance would reduce the required parking lot setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet, along the alley from 5 feet to 0 feet, and along the south lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet in order to allow the existing gravel parking lot to be paved and striped for 7 parking spaces ZBA December 13, 2007—Page 2 that conform to the City's parking space dimensional regulations. The new parking lot will incorporate new trees, improve the aesthetics and reduce dust. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: Since the parking lot can legally remain as a gravel lot, the proposed voluntary paving is certainly an upgrade. A hardship would be imposed on the applicant if the setback standards are required to be met since only 2 or 3 usable parking spaces would remain. Therefore, there would be no incentive to upgrade from a gravel surface to a hard surface. The existing gravel lot complies with the code because it's a legally grandfathered parking lot, and therefore staff believes that the proposed parking lot plan satisfies the purpose of the code better than the existing parking lot. One of the purposes of the parking regulations is to require hard surface lots in order to reduce dust pollution. Paving this lot would accomplish that purpose. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The property is on College Avenue just north of Laurel. There are other small businesses along College Avenue that have parking lots abutting the alley to the east. The lots are either paved or gravel. The applicant's present parking lot is gravel, predates the City's parking lot setback and landscaping requirements, and the applicant is proposing to upgrade it. When an applicant elects to upgrade an existing, nonconforming parking lot, they must comply with the entire ordinance including perimeter parking lot landscaping and parking lot setbacks from the lot lines to accommodate that landscaping. As indicated by the Petitioner, paving this lot and complying with the side and rear setbacks would result in two or three legal parking spaces as opposed to the full use of the parking lot. There are no city requirements that the applicant needs to change the parking lot, although a change of building use would trigger compliance with the parking ordinance. The Applicant is proposing three trees and some landscaping on the lot. Hall asked if the Code makes a differentiation between how the parking lot is accessed or screened from the street. Barnes replied no, it does not matter where the parking lot is on the lot and the location of the access. Residential screening requirements are more restrictive than commercial. Dickson asked about the 5 foot side and rear setback. Barnes replied it is a landscape setback; specifically, two new trees are proposed in the north area and a small landscaped island in the northeast corner of the lot near the alley with a tree. Hall asked if the purpose of the code is to soften the aesthetic effect. Barnes stated that the purpose is twofold: (1) to prevent big seas of asphalt; and (2) to provide shading and improve appearance. Applicant's Participation: The applicant is Bud Frick. The parking lot is at 526 South College, which is Mr. Frick's office. The current parking lot is 40 feet. With the 5 foot north and south setbacks, the lot would end up being 30 feet. By placing asphalt on the parking lot, it will be less dusty for the tenants. McBride asked if the Applicant would put in bumper logs or a curb. Frick responded that a curb would be installed so the snow plows won't take them out so easily. Board Discussion: Hall asked if any of the parking lots in that area are complying with the new regulations. Barnes responded that he didn't know about every lot, but the ones he had seen don't comply. Most of the building uses in that area have not changed; therefore, there hasn't been a trigger mechanism to cause parking lot modifications. Hall also asked if there are a number of lots in that area that are 40 feet wide. Barnes stated it appears this lot is narrower. The other lots are generally 50 feet in width. ZBA December 13, 2007—Page 3 Hall asked the applicant about his knowledge of parking lot widths in the area. The applicant responded that a parking lot was redone for a dental office some years ago, and that met the parking requirements at the time. Miscio asked if there are any relevant drainage issues caused by going from a gravel, porous surface to a paved surface. Frick responded that the parking lot is very packed and the water runs off of it rather than being absorbed. The flow is to the center of the alley and then out to the street. Dickson stated she felt the application was equal to or better than the purpose of the code. The parking lot is quite small so the sea of asphalt is not an issue. Some landscaping will also be done which will provide shading. Hall said that it is a traditional alley and there is not a beautiful setting which will be disrupted by a parking lot. Miscio stated he is in favor of it since an upgrade from gravel to hard surface is an improvement. Dickson stated it is an equal or better to justification. Hall also stated he felt it was an equal or better than justification. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2593 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 these parking lots having setbacks is to visually break up the sea of pavement that can occur and to provide shade. 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 with the narrowness of this lot, it is very difficult to comply with the 5 foot side yard and back yard setback and still provide ample parking. In addition, the applicant is showing that he is going to provide shade by planting trees, and he is going to have a landscaped area. Overall, it is an upgrade to the existing parking lot which is dusty, and it will provide proper drainage and a clean surface and a more pleasing aesthetic to the alley. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2594 - APPROVED Address: 620 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Troy Hiebsch Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(4) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 9 feet to 7.5 feet and along the west lot line from 9 feet to 5.5 feet in order to allow construction of a new 2-story single family home. The side walls are a gable roof, with a wall height from the ground to the top of the wall being 26 feet at the peak of the gable. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The design of the home gives the appearance of a 1 1/2 story building rather than a full 2 story building. Therefore, the home fits into the character of the ZBA December 13, 2007— Page 4 existing neighborhood. The side walls only exceed the height limit at a portion of the wall, rather than the whole length of the house. At the proposed setbacks, the code would allow a 22 foot high wall for the entire length of the east side of the home and a 19 foot high wall for the entire length on the west side. The proposed design satisfies the code equally well as would a traditional two-story home with higher walls along the entirety of both sides of the home. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. The subject property is in the NCM zone, one of the old town neighborhood zoning districts with more restrictive requirements than in the newer subdivisions. The standard side setback requirement is 5 feet as long as the wall height along the lot line doesn't exceed 18 feet. The portion of the wall height that exceeds 18 feet has to be further set back. In this case, 7 %2 feet on the east and 5 % feet on the west exceed 18 feet. The options to meet the requirement include moving the entire wall or stepping the wall back. The shaded area on the elevation drawings is the portion of the west and east elevations that exceed the 18 foot height requirement. The applicant has also submitted a letter. McBride asked what the code specifically says about walls above 18 feet. Barnes replied the code requires a 5 foot side yard setback for any wall that doesn't exceed 18 feet. Then, for every two feet or fraction thereof of additional wall height above 18 feet, you need one additional foot of setback. A wall height of 181" requires 6 feet of setback; 20 feet would require 6 feet; 201" would require 7 feet, and 20'1" up to 22 feet would require 7 feet. McBride asked if there was a height limitation. Barnes responded that it is not determined in feet but the zoning district allows a two- story structure. Applicant's Participation: Ian Shuff introduced himself as a friend and neighbor of the applicant, Troy Hiebsch. Shuff is also an architect and is working with Hiebsch on this house. Shuff stated that they are proposing a more typical one and one-half story cross -gable, bungalow -style house with dormers in the front and back. The goal was to have the main roof at the one-story level at the front and back of the house, mitigating the scale but still providing more of the two-story square footage that the applicant desires. Shuff presented the board members with other similarly - designed houses in old town that are beyond the 18 foot limitation. Shuff also stated they could build a two-story house, but this is the design they prefer with the gable facing the street. Shuff and Hiebsch feel that it is equal or better than what is allowed by the code. Hall asked what footage is above the 18 foot mark on the gable end. Shull responded that it is about 7 feet on the west side. Barnes said that it is 7 Y2 feet on the west side and about 6 feet on the other side. Hall asked if the applicant had considered the hip roof similar to the property to one side and at the rear. Shuff replied that the applicant preferred the true bungalow style with the gable roof. Hiebsch stated they were attempting to match the designs that were more true to that neighborhood. Miscio asked if Shuff knew if the pictures they were given were nonconforming. Shuff responded that approximately half of them do not meet code. Shuff stated they are not trying to do a big house. They are trying to keep the scale proportionate for the neighborhood and they think they are accomplishing that by doing a story and a half design. Miscio asked how close the neighbors are on the nonconforming sides. Shuff replied that it was probably 5 to 6 feet on the west side. He stated it was a little larger on the east side because the applicant wants to utilize that side for a sidewalk connection or landscaping between their back and ZBA December 13, 2007— Page 5 front yard. Instead of centering the house on the lot, they are maximizing the side yard on the east. Barnes asked Shuff and Hiebsch if they would explain what they were trying to show in the pictures. Hiebsch responded that they were attempting to show the kind of massing they could do with a two-story structure that would be allowed under the code. The proposed design helps mitigate the size and, with the dormers, it is more dynamic and has more articulation versus a four- square shaped more like a box with a small porch on it. It is evidence that the proposed design is an equal to or better than justification. Board Discussion: Hall stated that he liked what the applicant is trying to do and that it is his opinion that the code is a good code. McBride stated that he does not think the code is adequate or sophisticated enough to accommodate architectural designs and that there should be some credit given simply because the proposed design has more impact than what is being done. Miscio asked Barnes the purpose of the code the way it was written. Barnes responded that the purpose was strictly to prevent shading on the narrower lots. When the code was written in the 1990s, lots in new subdivisions were much wider than old town lots, and the City did not want new structures in the NCL, NCM and NCB zones to shade other houses. McBride asked if there were any responses from the neighbors. Barnes replied that a response was received from Bruce and Rebecca Heckel at 619 West Mountain stating they had no objection to the granting of the variance. Hall stated he was in favor of the applicant's justification. Miscio said that this structure is more effective at minimizing shading than a structure conforming to the code would be and he, therefore, felt the equal to or better than justification was most appropriate. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2594. The general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to prevent shading of the adjoining house from excessively tall homes. 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 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 proposal submitted would actually have less impact on the neighboring house than the code allows. Even though the wall height is higher than the code allows, the mass area is significantly less and hence the shading would be less. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: ZBA December 13, 2007— Page 6 4. APPEAL NO Address: Petitioner: Zone: Section: 2595 - APPROVED 400 Whedbee St. Steve Whittal NCM 4.8(E)(3) Background: The variance will reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow the construction of a new, detached 2-car garage in the rear portion of the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: 1) The topography of the lot creates hardships with regards to the slope of the property and the logical placement of the garage. 2) There is an existing street tree that would have to be removed in order to accommodate the driveway if the garage is placed at a 15 foot setback. 3) The principal building is a historic building. The Historic Preservation Office would like to preserve as much yard space as possible between the existing building and the new garage. Placing the building at a 5 foot setback helps to accomplish this. Staff Comments: The slope of the lot and the location of the existing tree could constitute a hardship. The board recently approved a setback variance for a detached garage based on a similar hardship. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. The building on the front of the property is a historic church that the applicant is converting to a single-family dwelling with a proposed garage at the rear of the property. The NCM zone is an old town zoning district that requires a 5 foot rear yard setback when the rear yard is along an alley. Otherwise, a 15 foot rear yard setback is required. The lot as originally platted went all the way back to the alley. But like many other corner lots in these neighborhoods, the lot was split from front to back. Now, the rear of the property does not abut the alley as it originally did and, therefore, there is a 15 foot rear yard setback requirement. As a result, this lot is 100 feet in depth, considerably shallower than the normal lot depth that you find in old town neighborhoods. One of the main reasons for the proposed setback is to locate the building towards the rear of the property to try and achieve as much separation between the former church and the garage as possible. The excavation for the garage appears to have been completed. Hall asked what will be east of garage. Barnes responded that it was the other lot. Hall then asked if there is a house that faces Magnolia. Peter said that there is. Applicant's Participation: Steve Whittal is the applicant and his address is 11358 Happy Hollow Road, Loveland, Colorado. He owns the building. He lived in the neighborhood approximately twenty years ago and is working with historical preservation. He has decided to use the building as his primary residence as well as an office for By Design Homes. By minimizing the setback from 15 feet to 5 feet, he will accomplish the following: (1) it will create a sense of separation between the quite vertical church that is elevated up with retaining walls around it; (2) it allows the tie in to retaining walls; and (3) it allows the street tree to be retained. Hall asked if the structure had been historically designated. The applicant stated that it has. McBride asked if there are retaining walls on either side of the drive. Whittal responded yes, that he intends to put the garage subgrade so the interior of the garage walls ultimately become a portion of the retaining wall and tie into what are now the new walls. The former retaining walls were removed because they were in the city right-of-way. The new retaining wall will ultimately tie into the garage so the back wall or the east wall of the garage would ultimately be only 6 to 7 feet in height. The city has also required off-street parking with this change of use. The plan is to put the subgrade so there is a very limited fall from the slab of the garage floor to the sidewalk. Whittal will work with city engineering on the curb and the antiquated storm drainage grates. He has ZBA December 13, 2007— Page 7 encouraged city engineering to treat the curb, gutter and sidewalk as non -historical and add some appropriate upgrades. Whittal thinks this will be one of the nicer mixed -use buildings in the area. Hall asked Barnes the code's intent in cases where the rear yard and side yard are effectively the same. Barnes responded that on a corner lot, the address can be changed. In this case, it would be changed to a Magnolia Street address, and what is now the rear would be changed to a side. Whittal stated that instead of switching the address to Magnolia, the same thing would be accomplished by recognizing that the proposal would be equal to or better than the property directly across the street. Barnes stated that the code defines what the front lot line is. By definition, once the front lot line is determined, the rear lot line is the opposite. But, on a corner lot the front lot line is determined either by the address or the location of the primary entrance. For this property, both the address and the primary entrance are on Whedbee. The rear is the rear even though the house next door and all the other houses face Magnolia. Hall asked about the reason for the 5 foot versus the 15 foot setback. Barnes replied that when there is an alley in this zoning district, the code requires only a 5 foot setback because the alley acts as a built-in separation so that one detached accessory building is not placed right next to another similar building. Without the alley, there is no 20 foot alley separation, so the code says that in order to maintain that separation a 15 foot rear yard setback is required. Hall stated that he needed clarification on why a 30 foot separation between two buildings is required on the back of a lot, but only a 10 foot separation if they are side by side. Barnes stated that rear yards are used by residents to plant gardens, etc. It is typically expected that side yards are narrower. Audience Participation: Michael Chalona lives at 408 Whedbee Street, which is two houses to the south towards Magnolia. Chalona stated that he supports the appeal because it will improve the overall quality of the neighborhood. Karen McWilliams is a historic preservation planner with the City Planning and Community Development Department and also staff to the Landmark Preservation Commission. She stated that the Landmark Preservation Commission did review and were very much in favor of Whittal's proposal prior to this hearing. They would prefer to see the separation of the garage and church because it better retains the historic characteristics of the original church building. They also felt it was compatible with the rest of the character of the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Hall stated he thinks the proposal makes sense. McWilliams stated that the Landmark Preservation District felt this design was far better than what would be approved typically under the code with the garage much closer to the historic building. Dickson asked if the reasoning was equal to or better than. Hall stated that the findings of the Historic Commission were equal to or better than and thinks that this proposal certainly accommodates the provisions of the code for separation and space. Miscio also stated that the subgrade garage is excellent because it diminishes the mass on the lot. He thinks it is equal to or better than what the code intended. McBride asked Barnes if there were any comments from the neighbor to the east. Barnes responded that he did not receive any. Miscio stated that the applicant is responding to the topography as well as he could. Hall and Dickson asked if the lot slopes down to the rear. Whittal responded that there is a slight fall -away on that grade. Miscio asked Whittal about issues that needed to be addressed with the city regarding access. Whittal responded that he needs to resolve some issues with engineering on the height of the sidewalk versus the height of the curb. Miscio asked if there is a curb cut where needed for the ZBA December 13, 2007— Page 8 garage. Whittal stated there is no curb cut to the property. Miscio then asked if approval of this appeal would undermine the Engineering Department. Barnes responded they have their own standards on which they will apply or grant variances. Barnes added that the change of use will require a parking area on the lot. The parking area will either be a concrete slab or a structure, but either way a curb cut will be required. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2595. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to promote space, air, light, and avoid shading. 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 structure and the property are a corner lot and the manner in which it is sited there can almost be construed as a side yard as opposed to a back yard. A side yard would only require a 5 foot setback. The structure to be built on the property the variance is being requested for is going to be subgrade so it will minimize the impact of the density on the lot. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Office has approved the plans the applicant is requesting. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 5. Other Business: Karen McWilliams, historic preservation planner with the City Planning and Community Development Department and staff to the Landmark Preservation Commission, addressed the board regarding the appropriateness of the ordinance allowing someone to build a bigger mass house without a variance while a variance is required for a smaller -mass structure. Barnes stated Ron Daggett will not attend the January and February 2008 ZBA meetings. Barnes also stated that this is Miscio's last meeting after eight years of service. City Council will meet Tuesday, December 18, 2007 and will appoint two new members for the ZBA to fill the Robert Donahue and Andy Miscio vacancies. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. g t/Hall, Chairperson /'2� 4." t, Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator