HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/12/2015Michael Bello, Chair
Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair
Daphne Bear
Robert Long
John McCoy
Ralph Shields
Butch Stockover
Council Liaison, Gino Campana
Staff Liaison, Noah Beals
Location:
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call221-6515 (TDD 224-6001 ) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 2015
9:00AM
• Call to Order and Roll Call
Boardmembers Absent: Bear and McCoy
• Citizen Participation (Items Not on the Agenda)
None
• Approval of Minutes from January 15, 2015 meeting
Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2015
meeting. Yeas: Bello, Shuff, Long, Shields and Stockover. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
• Appeals for Variance to the Land Use Code
1. APPEAL # 2792 - Approved
Address:
Petitioner/Owner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
6515 Westchase Court
Robert Smith
U-E
4.2(D)(2)(d)
The variance would reduce the side setback from 20 feet to 10 feet along the west property line and
from 20 feet to 14 feet along the east property line in order to construct a new single family residence.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to appeal and noted the setback would be consistent with other
properties in the area. Additionally, Beals noted this neighborhood was developed while still in the
county and later annexed into the City.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 12, 2015
Applicant Presentation:
Brian Shear, Shear Engineering, 4636 South College, provided two letters of support from neighbors.
He stated he has investigated the other houses in the area and determined at least one neighbor has
been through a similar ZBA variance process. As this is the final house to be built on the cul-de-sac,
this setback variance would allow the house to be set further forward to be more in line with the
existing houses. Additionally, Shear noted the neighbors' views would be impeded should the
setbacks be met.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bello stated this variance would be nominal and inconsequential given the context of the
neighborhood. Long stated the estate feel of the development would be better met given the setback
variances. Shuff agreed and stated meeting the Code would be a detriment.
Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 2792 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, a reduced
setback on both sides will allow the house to meet the contextual front setback of the cul-de
sac, two of the other three homes on the cul-de-sac have side setbacks of ten feet; therefore
the variance request will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to
advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bello, Shuff and Shields. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. APPEAL # 2793 - Approved
Address:
Petitioner/Owner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
363 Pascal Street
Andrew Rauch
C-C-N
3.5.2(E)(3)
The variance would allow an alley accessed attached garage to continue to be built upon a
foundation that was installed 9 inches into the required 8 foot rear yard setback and 8 foot utility and
access easement.
Bello withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to appeal and noted, though the Board has approved similar variances
in the area, this situation differs in that the builder who poured the foundation is the same person
seeking the variance. Beals stated the foundation was poured 9 inches into the easement at one
corner and tapers down to a zero encroachment at the other corner. Additionally, he noted the other
side of the alley is HOA open land and the view of the encroachment is not all that noticeable from
the alley. He noted the easement will need to be vacated prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Stockover asked if the other properties have received easement vacations. Beals replied the
applications have at least been received by the Engineering Department.
Shuff noted the house has already been framed and requested information regarding the typical
process. Beals replied this property was granted a partial building permit and an ILC must be
presented to receive a full building permit. In this case, the 9 inch encroachment was discovered as
part of the ILC and the City either requires a correction or variance.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if a stop work order has been issued. The applicant replied in
the negative.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 12, 2015
Applicant Presentation:
Andrew Rauch, 345 East Mountain Avenue, FR Development contractor and property owner,
provided the Board with additional photographs of the property. He noted, though the general
contractor is ultimately responsible, the foundation was poured out of square by a subcontractor.
Additionally, he stated there did not appear to be any utilities other than Comcast in the easement.
Shuff asked if a stop work order had been issued. Rauch replied in the negative but stated
construction has slowed drastically given the cost of the project thus far.
Long asked for a description of the process necessary to fix the foundation problem. Rauch replied
the entire house would need to be deconstructed but noted the vertical wall of the house only
encroaches three or four inches into the setback.
Stockover asked about the soil conditions in the area. Rauch replied the entire subdivision was filled
and the houses on this side of the subdivision were built up because of the high water table and have
no basements.
Stockover asked when the error was discovered. Rauch replied the framer discovered the mistake
and the supervisor of the project hid the mistake and has since been dismissed.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Stockover noted getting the foundation poured correctly is quite important on smaller lots; however,
this variance seems to be inconsequential.
Shuff agreed and noted the issue was clearly a mistake and not intentional. Additionally, the vertical
wall of the house will only be approximately 4 inches into the easement. However, Shuff stressed the
importance of properly pouring the foundations particularly on small lots.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman requested the Board provide a date certain by which the easement
vacation should occur.
Shuff suggested the easement should be vacated prior to the certificate of occupancy.
Stockover asked if this is a spec home. Rauch replied in the affirmative and noted the full building
permit was already issued for the project.
Stockover asked what would occur should the easement not be vacated. Beals replied the variance
is conditional upon the easement vacation; therefore a CO could not be issued should the easement
not be vacated.
Shuff made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal No. 2793 deeming that the
variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the greatest point of the encroachment
is 9 inches and does not extend the entire length of the building, nine inches is only 9% of the
entire 8 foot setback, the other side of the alley is open space and not another residential
property; therefore the variance request will diverge from the standard in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and would continue
to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Additionally, the
approval is conditional upon the vacation of the utility easement for the portion of the building
encroaching into said easement prior to the issuance of a CO. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff
and Shields. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
3.
APPEAL # 2794 - Approved
Address:
Petitioner:
Owner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
414 Apple Blossom Lane
Rick Emery, Contractor
Brian & Marie Wingfield
UE
4.2(D)(2)( d)
Zoning Board of Appeals Page4 February 12, 2015
Project Description:
The variance would allow a 91 square foot addition to be constructed 7 feet 5 inches into the required
20 foot side setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the neighborhood was originally developed in
the county prior to being annexed and a portion of the house already encroaches into the setback.
Applicant Presentation:
Rick Emery, Ridgetop Builders, stated the Wingfields have lived in this house for 25 years and this
expansion would allow for additional ground level living without the need for too much stair travel.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bello asked if the fact the owners are unable to navigate stairs is a hardship. Deputy Attorney
Eckman replied the hardship criterion is only applicable to the property itself.
Stockover suggested this variance would be nominal and inconsequential given the addition mirrors
the existing structure and there is no abutting neighbor.
Bello and Shuff agreed with Stockover and stated the variance request is likely a visual improvement.
Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 2794 for the following
reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the existing structure
already encroaches into the side setback and the proposed encroachment does not exceed
the distance of the existing encroachment, the requested encroachment is a single-story
addition which is 10% of the entire length of the side property line; therefore the variance will
not diverge from the standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered
in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bello, Shuff and Shields. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. APPEAL # 2769 EXTENSION - Approved
Address:
Petitioner/Owner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
331 Spinnaker Lane
Martin Johns
RL
4.4(D)(2)(b)
The owner is requesting an extension to a variance request that was approved in July. The original
project description was a request for variance to Section 4.4(D)(2)(b), front setback. The variance
would reduce the required minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet in order to allow the
construction of a new garage and mud room addition to replace the existing garage. The existing
garage is at a 20 foot setback and the addition will be at a 12 foot setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed the originally approved plan and noted extensions are typically granted for six months.
Applicant Presentation:
Martin Johns, 331 Spinnaker Lane, stated the original architect has been dismissed and plans were
received from the new architect a week prior to the variance expiration.
Shuff asked if the plans have changed. Mr. Johns replied the design has changed but the variance
request has not changed.
Long asked if the footprint of the addition has changed. Mr. Johns replied it has changed minimally;
however, a 3 car garage is now part of the design.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 12, 2015
Bello requested additional detail regarding the new plan and asked if the Board could postpone
consideration of the item in order to receive a new site plan. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated
postponement of the extension request would not affect the timeliness of the application.
Bello expressed concern there may now be two points needing consideration rather than one.
Long noted the Board approved the 12 foot setback and this plan is still within that setback.
Shuff stated the qesign changes are worth evaluating.
The Board held a discussion regarding the design changes and the resulting impact on the variance
approval.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Shuff suggested the amount of encroachment could be based on the 11/24/14 site plan.
Bello made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the extension request for Appeal No.
2769 based on the parameters of the previous approval with the condition that the site plan
shown on the current drawings is what is implemented.
Yeas: Bello, Shuff, Shields, Stockover and Long. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
• Other Business
The Board held a brief discussion regarding the necessary specificity of motions.
• Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:19 a.m.
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning