Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/08/2018Heidi Shuff, Chair Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long Cody Snowdon Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Ken Summers 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 call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 2018 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180040 – Approved Address: 4985 Hogan Drive Owner: Elise Simon and RJ Blume Petitioner: Jeffrey Gaines, HighCraft Builders Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This variance request is for a new accessory building to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 feet side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is located south of Harmony and east of South College. The neighborhood was originally platted in the county and annexed into the city afterwards, so some other structures in the neighborhood do not meet the required 20-foot side yard setback designated in the U-E zone district. The proposed structure is located in the back yard and at an angle to the property line. The setback is 5 feet, but the only point that is five feet is the corner of the structure, and then it decreases in proximity to the property line. The structure is mostly open, has a fireplace and transparent glass with a roof covering. There are other encroachments into the side yard set backs within this neighborhood. The full length of the lot is 196 feet, this encroachment is only about 20 feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 Boardmember Shuff asked Beals about the code structure. Can a structure be placed in the setback if it has an eave height less than 8 feet and floor area less than a certain amount of square footage? Beals says if a structure is less than 8 feet in total building height (not eve height) and less than 120 square feet, then it does not require a building permit and does not require a zoning setback. This structure is just slightly more than that. Applicant Presentation: Zach Larrick, 429 S. Howes Street, with HighCraft Builders, addressed the board. Property owners RJ and Elise are also present. This is a screened in structure, not enclosed by glass. The goal in location of structure is to keep it nestled into the trees on the side of the yard and keep it low profile to the neighbors. Elise had the immediate neighbors sign a petition agreeing that they approve the structure. Typically, a neighborhood not in the UE district would have a 5 foot setback. The required 20 foot setback would be in the middle of the backyard. Boardmember Shuff asked about the position of the project. Mr. Larrick explained the proposed structure is near the master suite, and the further it’s placed into the middle of the yard impedes the view out of the master suite. Also, it feels more comfortable with their size of lot to hold it closer to the 5 foot setback. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff is in support, given the size and height of the structure and reasoning behind the location she thinks it is nominal and inconsequential. This would be different if it was a brand-new house or addition that would be 5 feet from the setback, but an open air transparent structure that is not even heated is different. She’s in support of the project. Boardmember Snowdon agrees with Boardmember Shuff; the low profile and openness of the structure doesn’t feel like it impedes on the neighboring property. Boardmember Stockover likes the proposal. Boardmember Bear points out they have support from neighbors. Bear made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve ZBA180040 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the lot is 196 feet in length and the encroachment is for 20 feet of the length, only the corner of the accessory structure is at a 5 foot setback, and other buildings in the immediate neighborhood do not meet the 20 foot side- yard setback. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shields, Jackson, Snowdon, Shuff, Stockover, Bear Nays: None The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA180041 - Approved Address: 2243 Hiawatha Court Owner/Petitioner: Thomas and DeAnne Redder Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This variance request is to build a tempered glass pool enclosure which exceeds the maximum allowed area of an accessory building for this parcel in the R-L zone district. The 1495 square foot structure would exceed the 800 square feet limit by 695 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is just north of Columbia Road. The structure will be built in the back yard. The trees that are on the aerial view picture have already been removed. There are no trees in the backyard at this point. The R-L district requires a 7 foot setback on either side property line, and at least a 15 foot setback from the back of the structure to back property line. Beals presented schematics of what the structure would look like; most of it is made of tempered glass and would follow the outline of the cement patio that Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 will be built along with the pool. There is not currently a pool in place, the applicants are waiting on approval of this project as a pool requires a security structure surrounding it. The pictures are not the exact structure that would be built; these pictures are slightly bigger. Most of the neighborhood has houses that are 2 story. The structure being proposed is a 12 foot tall, one story structure in the back that is transparent. Allowable floor area in the R-L district says the lot size has to be 3 times greater than the floor area built on the property. This structure will not exceed the total allowable floor area for the lot. The structure will not be visible from the front of the lot. Boardmembers discussed where exactly this neighborhood is located. Boardmember Snowdon asked Beals about the accessory building code language. They determined if this was connected to the primary house, then it would be completely compliant and count toward the primary structure’s square footage. Our code doesn’t limit the number of accessory buildings you can have, but it does limit how large one accessory building can be, which is 800 square feet. Boardmember Shuff confirmed the width of the proposed structure will be approximately as wide as the back of the house, just short of 50 feet. They will pour the concrete to 50 feet by 30 feet and the structure would be just inside that concrete. Applicant Presentation: Tom Redder and DeAnne Redder, 2243 Hiawatha Court, addressed the board. They have lived at this address for 25 years, raised kids and pets there. General contractor, Sean Shiers, and neighbor, Ron Slosson, are also present. Mr. Redder went to many neighbors, even beyond a 150-foot radius of the property and obtained numerous signatures in support of the project. Mr. Redder states Mission Hills has been platted for 42 years, this house and all neighbors’ houses and trees were planted in about 1976. The 2 trees remaining in the backyard were some of the largest trees that the tree removal company had ever seen. They were starting to encroach on the cement and pipelines, and the company said they need to be removed. As a result, they have the biggest yard in the neighborhood with nothing in it. Mr. Redder had submitted plans for putting a pool into the backyard, and the city notified them that the size and location of the pool are approved, but a pool must be secured. There are three ways to secure a pool in Fort Collins: a gate, a pool cover, or a greenhouse. Mr. Redder explained they already have 6-foot cedar fencing along all the property lines in the neighborhood, but that’s not sufficient to secure the pool. There must be a separate gate all the way around the pool. Also, a gate and fence are easily climbed over, which would not provide much security. The pool cover is also not very safe, as someone could fall through the cover if not property secure. The green house offers the opportunity to grow things year-round and relax in winter without being too cold. Mr. Redder has contracted a company called Pool Enclosures Inc. that has built many tempered glass, insulated greenhouses that are used to cover pools. The greenhouse is a better way to secure the pool as they can lock doors, much more secure than fence or cover. Mr. Redder addressed the earlier discussion regarding total allowable floor area, explaining they originally weren’t intending it to be an extension of the house, but it almost is. The oblong cement pad with inground pool and enclosure abuts the back covered patio. In the future, they could close in that patio and truly make it an extension of the house. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Boardmember Snowdon acknowledges that if this was attached, it would still be under the building square footage, it is right behind the house and within the width of the existing house. However, it is still a large auxiliary building. Boardmember Jackson doesn’t think this is detrimental to public good, it’s actually good for safety in this case. Boardmember Shields says the proposed structure is basically connected to house as the back patio is covered. Also, the neighborhood support is huge, probably one of the biggest support lists he’s seen submitted to the board, and he would approve this. Boardmember Shuff agrees, pretty much everyone in neighborhood is in support, that’s the biggest weight on her mind. The fact that it’s so close to the existing house, it’s almost an extension, they could easily connect and bring it into compliance in the future. Boardmember Bear confirmed the home is larger in square footage, so this is definitely an accessory building, and she has no other concerns. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 Shuff made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve ZBA180041 as it is not detrimental to the public good, the accessory building does not exceed the total allowable floor area for the lot, the primary building is 2 stories and the proposed accessory building is 12 feet in height, and the proposed accessory building is largely transparent. Additionally, if the existing covered back patio was enclosed it would be considered one primary structure, therefore the variance will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shields, Jackson, Snowdon, Shuff, Stockover, Bear Nays: None The Motion was carried. 3. APPEAL ZBA180042 - Approved Address: 728 Cherry Street Owner/Petitioner: Kirk Longstein Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: This variance request is for a 556 square foot 1-story addition to the rear of the home to encroach 6 feet into the 15 feet required rear yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is on the north side of Cherry Street, and east side of N. Grant, and is a corner property in the Old Town area. The existing house faces Cherry Street and is addressed on Cherry Street. The back property line is opposite, on the north side of the property, and the rear yard setback is 15 feet. Property to the north fronts on North Grant so the shared property line is a side property line for the property to the north with only a 5-foot setback required. The house extends north and south. The variance request is for an extension that goes to north, with a proposed setback about 9 feet from their rear property line. This is a one-story addition, about 15 feet in length. An alley runs north and south on the east side of the property. Applicant Presentation: Kirk Longstein, 728 Cherry Street, addressed the board. Their primary interests are to complete this addition as their family grows, and long-term home ownership in Fort Collins. They hope the contemporary design fits with the context of the neighborhood. Not looking to pop-up or sprawl across the lot, but instead looking to use the lot in the best way possible. The challenge and unique hardship to this property is that the rear yard currently faces into the neighbor’s side yard. As the neighbors sit on the rear patio, they look into the neighbor’s side yard and the house is very close in proximity. The proposed design is intended for the side yard to become the back yard. Currently it’s fenced off so they are not using the side yard to its potential and they want to expand that. They would like to have the entrance to the east to utilize the side lot to the alley. It is a low-profile design, lower than the existing roof structure. They are hoping to align with the existing structure of the neighborhood, with the variance from existing code seen as nominal and inconsequential. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff asked if the applicant is still within compliance for rear half of the lot since it’s a wide lot fronting on Cherry. Beals confirmed that they are just meeting the restrictions. Boardmember Stockover stated it seems very typical of what is seen in the Old Town area, a small addition to accommodate growth versus moving. On a corner lot with no opposition he sees no problem with the proposal. Boardmember Snowdon says the orientation is the key, if the front was towards Grant it would not be a problem, they have a great back yard. Being addressed on Cherry instead of Grant is what throws it out of compliance. The request fits the neighborhood criteria and he is in support. Boardmember Bear sees the request as nominal and inconsequential with the neighbor’s 5-foot setback and the applicant’s requested 9 foot setback. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 Boardmember Shuff agreed, and stated the proposed solution is a good one. They are still honoring their rear yard with a 9-foot setback which is pretty substantial considering it is essentially acting as a sideyard to the neighboring property that fronts on Grant. Jackson made a motion, seconded by Snowdon, to approve ZBA180042 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the abutting property has a 5 foot setback from the shared property line, the proposed addition is setback 9 feet, which is four additional feet than the setback of the abutting property, and the length of the proposed encroachment is 15 feet. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 Vote: Yeas: Shields, Jackson, Snowdon, Shuff, Stockover, Bear Nays: None The Motion was carried. 4. APPEAL ZBA180043 - Approved Address: 638 Smith Street Owner/Petitioner: Brian and Shelley Tracy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6) Project Description: The variance request is to build a new detached garage with a carport. The proposed building is 826.7 square feet (600 square feet of garage and 226.7 square feet of carport). The maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building is 600 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The property is located on Smith Street, south of Myrtle, toward the south end of the block. The proposal is for a new 600 square foot garage, and also a carport/porch attached to garage. Prior to this year this project would not have required a variance, but the code changed this year stating a carport now counts as floor area. The code changed because the City has seen more large accessory structures not counting as floor area, but still presenting large building massing. Now the code states a carport, attached or not, does count toward the floor area. This garage design has been completed once before on the same block and same alley, and it was approved prior to the code change. There are other accessory buildings along the alley that are probably larger than 600 square feet even without a carport. Including the proposed structure, they still do not exceed the floor area for overall lot or the rear half of the lot. There are other structures along this block and alley that are similar in size to what is being proposed. Boardmember Shuff questioned the new code requirement, asking if there is anything to differentiate between a carport and a garage. Beals says not yet, staff will probably have to do an administrative interpretation or add other code language to clarify exactly what is meant by carport versus porch. We don’t have that language yet because the code is so new. If it’s big enough to fit cars, and it looks like a carport, then it’s treated as a carport. Applicant Presentation: Brian Tracy, 638 Smith Street, addressed the board. Mr. Tracy states their timing in purchasing the house was unfortunate, as the code changed the first week of June and they closed on this house the second week of June. They were not aware of the code change upon purchase. They are pursing the 30-foot-deep garage to have some useable space in front of the vehicles for tools and work. They do intend it to be a multi-use porch/carport, using it for cars or social gatherings. The roof comes over the width of the structure to provide more storage space than the attic, without increasing the height any more than most of the neighboring structures. It also provides a south facing uninterrupted pitch for the solar that they intend to install within about 5 years. The house roof is not good for solar, because of the proximity to nearby trees. Potential concern about massing is mitigated a bit by the actual design. The porch/carport doesn’t go the full depth; there is a small part of the building in the front and a larger part of the building in the back. The porch is open on all three sides therefore mitigating the visible effects of the massing. They are within the setbacks, 2 feet further in from the alley, 1 foot further in on the north side, and several feet further in on the south side. There is no