Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/13/2020Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 FEBRUARY 13, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve the January 9, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200001 – APPROVED Address: 616 West Street Owner: Susan Opdahl Petitioner: Casey Opdahl Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1)(c) Project Description: This a request for a proposed 600 square foot detached garage to be placed 22 feet in front of the primary structure. The required placement of an accessory structure is 10 feet behind the primary building. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this lot is a unique triangle shape. There is no alley present, so the garage can take access from the street. However, code states the garage needs to be setback 10 feet behind the front of the primary structure. The primary structure has existed since 1931. It would be difficult for the garage to be placed within code due to the triangular shape of the lot that tapers down towards the south end of the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 13, 2020 There is also a ditch on the property that requires a buffer and a shed on the property that both make it more challenging to place the garage further back. The proposal is a 2 car garage facing towards the street. Vice Chair LaMastra noted from the sketch it appears the garage is also encroaching into the front yard setback. Beals explained there is a specific standard for garages detailing the 10 foot setback from the primary structure. Boardmember LaMastra is correct that normally the 15 foot setback from the street would apply, but the garage setback is the applicable standard for this circumstance. Applicant Presentation: Casey Opdahl, 616 West Street, addressed the board. He added that he has spoken with the canal company, and they reserve the right to establish their own setback requirements. Both existing structures already encroach into the canal company’s easements. Therefore, this is the only spot they can find that tries to accommodate both the city codes and canal company codes. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the garage can’t go further south, more towards the point of the triangular lot. Mr. Opdahl replied there is a fire hydrant located there, it is difficult to see from the pictures. Proposed placement has the garage about 20 feet from the fire hydrant, they could possibly push it 2 or 3 feet further, but that would be the limit. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this seems very straightforward, not controversial and no neighbors in opposition, he would be in support. Boardmember Shuff would also be in support. Boardmember Lawton noted the property next to it has a huge garage right next to the property line and this would be an improvement to the area. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA200001 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the east prop line is uniquely defined by the existing ditch, the primary structure limits the placement of any accessory structure, and there is not an alley for the garage to access from, therefore this variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 2. APPEAL ZBA200002– APPROVED Address: 1800 W. Mountain Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Justine Reed Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7.D(2)(a)1.; 4.7.D(3); 4.7.E(3); and 4.7.E(4) Project Description: The request is for a variance to construct an attached 240 square foot garage to the existing single- family home. The proposed garage encroaches 3.6 inches into the 15 foot side setback on Frey; and 1.1 feet into the 15 foot rear setback. Additionally, the property exceeds the overall allowable floor area of 1859 square feet by 16 square feet, the entire proposed garage would be an increase over the allowable floor area, as well as exceeding the rear half allowable square footage of 581 square feet by 488 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner lot requesting a one car garage to be built on the north end of the existing structure. The property faces Mountain Ave. so the north end is the rear half of the property. The existing house does encroach into that setback already, the proposed garage aligns with the wall of the house. The lot originally extended from Mountain Ave. to the alley and it was subdivided afterwards, resulting in a uniquely small and shallow property where most of the house is in the rear half of the lot. There are existing parking spaces that encroach into the public right of way and this request will allow one of Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 13, 2020 these vehicles be parked on the property. The neighbor to the north has a garage abutting the property line as well, Beals believes they had a variance granted. Applicant Presentation: Justine Reed, 1800 West Mountain Ave, addressed the board. Most of the neighbors also have garages, and their proposed garage would not be visible from Mountain Ave. Boardmember Lawton asked if the house is for sale, Ms. Reed confirmed that is the case. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover asked with the 2 existing parking spaces and all the garages nearby, are there any access issues. Beals doesn’t have a definitive answer on that, but it may contribute to an issue if there is one present already. Ms. Reed confirmed there is no sidewalk at that location and Fey street is not paved. Stockover is in support of the variance. Vice Chair LaMastra stated we see this circumstance often, these subdivided lots are challenging, she would be in support. This is a small one car garage; they can’t build much smaller than 12 feet by 20 feet. Chair Shields agreed this proposal fits in the context of the neighborhood. Boardmember Lawton stated there is also a lot of garage space across the street, he would be in support. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA200002 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the property does not have alley access, the shared property line on the north is only a 5 foot setback, the addition is one story and one vehicle in size, the small parcel was created before it was annexed into the city and the subdivided parcel is shallow in depth, 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA200003 – APPROVED Address: 1233 Zinnia Way Owner: Andy Gordon Petitioner: Zak George Landscaping Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The request is for a variance for a rear deck encroaching 4 feet 4 inches into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is on the south end of the neighborhood development, surrounded by a tract of land that is part of the HOA and their detention pond. There is an existing deck and the owner would like to extend it further out and into the rear yard setback. Behind the property there is a substantial amount of distance to any other residential building due to the HOA land and the detention pond. Applicant Presentation: Zach Villegas, Zak George Landscaping, addressed the board. There is currently a patio that has collapsed in on itself, they will be removing that structure and they are proposing a composite deck. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there will be any shade structure for the deck. Mr. Villegas confirmed there is currently a wood pergola over the existing patio. On the landscape plan it is noted at the bottom right, they will be extending what is currently there. It will be an open pergola, not a roof. Audience Participation: (none) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 13, 2020 Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton is in support of the variance, there is no visibility from the street and no impact that he can see. This would be a general improvement to the property. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed, creating variances for functional outdoor spaces supports our values as a community. Chair Shields made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair LaMastra, to approve ZBA200003 based on Section 2.10.2(H) for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the rear property line is not shared by another residential lot, and there is a 100 foot space between the proposed deck and any building to the south; 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 4. APPEAL ZBA200004 – APPROVED Address: 120 Buckeye St. Owner: Mike & Nora Carolan Petitioner: Bill Fraser Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7.(D)(3) and 4.7.E(3) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to re-build and expand an existing attached garage. The new garage addition will be 648 square feet and encroach 7 feet into the rear-yard setback and exceed the allowable floor area in the rear half by 446 square feet. The maximum floor area is 1312 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is an interesting corner lot, located where Buckeye Street dead ends into an alley. Just south of this is the CSU Perennial Garden and there is an office building across the alley with more commercial use facing College Ave. There is an existing garage that does encroach into the rear yard setback, this garage would be removed prior to building the new garage. Most properties along Remington face Remington, but this property faces Buckeye Street. The shared property line is a rear setback for the property owner and a side setback for the property to the north. The way the property is divided puts a portion of the primary house already into the rear half of the lot. The request is not to exceed the overall allowable floor area for the property, but to exceed what’s allowed in the rear half. The new garage would take access off the alley. There is an existing patio and gate that currently opens into the alley, therefore no change in condition. The existing garage is shallow, and the desire is to have a 2-car garage, hence extending the length of the garage. The design is to compliment the primary house. There is a connection between the primary house and the existing garage, that connection would remain. The property to the north is heavily landscaped with trees. Vice Chair LaMastra inquired about the existing driveway from Buckeye Street, Beals will let the owner speak to that. Applicant Presentation: Mike and Nora Carolan, 120 Buckeye Street, addressed the board. Their plan is to replace the existing gravel with grass and a sitting area. The existing garage structure is extremely short in height, it was built in the 50’s or 60’s and it’s an eyesore. The structure faces the annual garden and is visible to the many tourists that walk the gardens. Boardmember Lawton inquired as to the height of the garage versus the house. Ms. Carolan replied the height of the existing garage is much shorter, the opening is approximately 6 feet, the new proposal will be one story. The current garage only holds a sedan, nothing taller. Audience Participation: (none) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 13, 2020 Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated there are no shading issues for the neighbors, there is nothing controversial in this proposal. He is always in support of secure parking for vehicles. The project looks very nice, he is in support of the variance. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed this is conforming more to code to have access off the alley instead of the street and the architecture is a big improvement. She will be in full support. Boardmember Shuff is also in support, the rear yard setback could almost be considered a side yard setback, the encroachment in this case is not an issue. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200004 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the lot fronts onto Buckeye Street resulting in a shallow depth, the proposed floor area does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot, the new attached garage extends the length of the existing encroachment by 11 feet, and the abutting north property is required a 5 foot setback. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 5. APPEAL ZBA200005 – APPROVED Address: 926 W. Mulberry St. Owner: Stephanie Scott Petitioner: Anthony Baietti Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7.E(4) Project Description: This request is for a variance to build a porch encroaching approximately 3 feet into the required 15 foot street-side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner lot. The request is for a porch along the west side of the property. The applicant might be changing the addressing street to Gordon as opposed to Mulberry, but he will let the applicant speak to that. The porch is open with a railing and it is covered only near the door entry. The property line sits quite a distance from the curb and gutter and the setback is measured from the front property line. Boardmember McCoy asked why Gordon is the front of the property with the address of Mulberry. Beals clarified that currently the front door is off Mulberry, changing the front door does not change the setback along the side property line. The owners can request an address change to Gordon in the future. Chair Shields inquired if there is a sidewalk on Gordon, Beals stated there is not. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about any plans for street improvements in this area. Beals explained that would originate from the engineering department. In general, there are always plans to improve sidewalks throughout the city, especially a location across from a school, but he is not aware of any timing or specific plans. There is approximately 11 feet from curb and gutter to property line. Sidewalks are normally 4.5 feet in width, leaving space for a parkway whether the future sidewalk was attached or detached. Applicant Presentation: Anthony Baietti, general contractor, addressed the board. There is a deck that was just removed as part of other improvements to the house. They are upgrading the entire structure with small additions that do not encroach in any setbacks, replacing the detached garage, new siding and windows. Previously there was very little curb appeal and no indication where the entry way is located. The Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 13, 2020 owner did utilize the previous deck, which was about 12 feet deep and encroached further into the setback than this proposal of a deck at 6 feet deep. To avoid any setbacks the deck would only be 3 feet in depth and therefore not functional. Currently there is no sidewalk on Gordon, visitors park on Gordon, walk up an existing driveway to the back door. The owners already use this area for access, and they would like to make it more attractive. Mr. Baietti is unsure if their intent is to actually change the addressing street, this is more to improve upon the entrance that is most used. The existing driveway and curb cut go up to this backdoor. The new detached garage is where they will be parking moving forward. Part of the current improvement is to remove the driveway and repair the curb so that if there ever is a sidewalk laid in the future it will be continuous. Boardmember Lawton noticed the detached garage has stairs to the 2P nd P floor, inquired as to the purpose of that space. Mr. Baietti replied it is used as office space for the owner, but there is an affidavit signed by the owner saying it will not be used as a livable space. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff emphasized the presence of a previous deck with a larger footprint. There is enough room between the curb line and the property line to allow for future sidewalk improvements and taking off that existing driveway and curb cut will also improvement the pedestrian experience. Six feet in porch depth is a minimum to ensure it is usable. He also appreciates the intensity of Mulberry and the owner’s desire to create an entry off Gordon. He will be in support of this variance. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA200005 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the porch is open on three sides, and there is 11 feet of landscape area from the property to the curb, 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 6. APPEAL ZBA200006 – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 1214 Mountain Home Dr. Owner: Gerald & Amy Esch Petitioner: John Baker Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 3.5.2(F) Project Description: This is a request for the garage to be forward of the front façade of the living area by 8 feet. The code requires street-facing garage doors to be recessed behind either the front façade of the ground floor living area or a covered front porch by at least 4 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is in the Lemay Avenue Estates subdivision, established in approximately 2006. At the beginning, construction was slow and now this is one of the last lots to be developed. This proposal is for a brand-new primary structure with a three-car garage, one with a taller bay, that will be placed 8 feet forward of the house. Code requires garage doors be recessed at least 4 feet behind a covered porch or a dwelling area of the house, or that the garage be side loaded. Of the neighboring lots, every garage is in compliance that has already built. There are grade changes on this property, and also on most of the neighboring properties in the cul-de-sac. Applicant Presentation: John Baker, Baker Western Group, addressed the board. Mr. Baker is the designer architect and general contractor for this project. This is a sizeable lot at 2/3 of an acre, however, it’s very sculpted. At about 32 feet from the street there is a very dramatic grade change with an 11-foot deep drop-off. The rest of the lot is on the lower elevation. They have created 5 different versions of the proposal trying to establish the best option. They discussed a side-loaded garage, but the 30-foot front setback places the garage doors right where the drop-off begins. The lot faces a dead end cul-de-sac on the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 13, 2020 front. Behind the lot is a detention pond, and most neighbors on the adjoining streets will view the back of the house, therefore increasing the importance of the rear of the lot. If they pushed the garage behind the setback, then that would create a large 20 foot wall, with the bottom 11 feet needed just to get to the floor of the garage. A sideload garage resulted in the same with a massive retaining wall to keep the driveway up at street grade. They tried to keep the front of the house as flush as possible with the garage, but it did not result in an appealing front aesthetic. They pushed the house back a little to have an undulation with the front of the house to create more interest. They did add some extra stone and high definition doors to the entry way. There is an architectural control board in the neighborhood and they have approved this plan. Also adding a natural stone landscape wall up front to create a courtyard beyond the garage. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the 20 foot wall, and if there is an option to terrace. Mr. Baker responded they are already proposing some stone walls that step down to offset the grade. Even with the current plan they will be trucking in a tremendous amount of dirt. To fill even more for driveway and garage would be more work and material. LaMastra asked about Mr. Beals comment that all the other homes in the area have complied with this standard. Mr. Baker disagreed, his observation is several other homes in the neighborhood have forward facing garages that are slightly recessed. The proposal does include one bay that has a 12x14 high door creating more scale to the front of the house and adding more dimensions. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this house is very similar to his own in layout and positioning. He questioned the main criteria for massing of garage doors up front. Beals and Stockover discussed the code reasoning for aesthetics with curb appeal and safety with less pedestrian/vehicle interaction. Shields added it was also to accentuate a front porch creating a community feel. Stockover stated this is a unique lot, they would need a lot of fill for the driveway to get this to street grade. He’s struggling to come up with a better option. It would be less massive to do a 2-car garage on the front. If the board draws a hard line on this variance, what would be built would not be as attractive as what is proposed. Boardmember Shuff emphasized that as a designer and architect they follow codes, not sure he understands the extent of the drop off without a topographic image. A 30-foot setback feels egregious in this case, but there is still concern over the garage relationship with the entry. There may be an opportunity to rotate the building to allow entry closer to street line. Codes are codes, he understands the grade issue, but maybe there is another way to look at this scenario. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she’s having a hard time accepting the challenges when there is not a visual representation of the site. Acknowledged the comments regarding the floor plan, but looking at the elevation, this is exactly what the code is trying to avoid. Even with the enhanced garage doors and stone, over half of the front façade of the house is garage that is sticking forward. Mr. Baker referred to the images submitted and pointed out where the highest grade and lowest grades are located. Vice Chair LaMastra explained they cannot see how the slope is changing, if there is any flatter area, or how does it go from one elevation to the next. Mr. Baker responded this area was built up and sculpted just for the cul-de-sac, the back half of the site was the original grade. The drop is very consistent and appears man made because it is too perfect. There is no spot to push the garage left or right for a natural plateau. Boardmember McCoy would be in support of this variance. The architectural control of the neighborhood approved this plan already. The setback of the house from the street is significant. Although he’s not a huge fan of garages out in the front, they did receive a neighbor letter with no opposition and there are no others here to oppose. At this point, we’re discussing design. Chair Shields stated the depth of the proposed driveway is substantial. However, he’s dealt with this code a number of times while building. There are many houses built in this city and he doesn’t recall ever seeing a variance like this, meaning every other house built since this code came into existence has been in compliance. He would have liked to see a more prominent front porch on the house, but they are tight on the 30-foot setback. The large setback and no opposition from neighbors would make him in support. Boardmember Lawton stated it’s hard to visualize the plan on the empty lot. There is unique nature of the topography, the drop off is significant and that is a hardship. He’s struggling with the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 13, 2020 neighborhood context as there does not appear to be any other primary structure that is as garage intensive. Two-thirds of the front of the house is garage doors. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the front architectural element almost intentionally disregards the front entrance. There is extra work being done everywhere else except the front entrance. More ornamentation is being given to the garage door than the front door. Boardmember Stockover agreed the front door seems plain and he does gravitate towards curb appeal. This is the last house on the block, the others are not garage forward, so it won’t be an entire street of garages. A more covered entry way would be better, but he’s in support of the variance. Continued board discussion regarding variances of this nature, the current code and the intent of the code. A different front porch would negate the prominent garage. Mr. Baker explained they are planning on a 3-foot stone natural wall, the whole front area will be flag stone creating a natural front patio with complete landscaping to create a courtyard feel. There will be a 4 foot planting bed between the garage and the front door, breaking up the solid wall. Vice Chair LaMastra disagreed, by setting back the front door and adding landscaping and walls, the entrance is more hidden. The point of the code is to push the front door out towards the street to provide a clear entrance. With this proposal you are still left with a massive façade of garages in the front. Mr. Baker countered the main intent of the front patio area is to provide a useable living space to engage with the neighborhood. Continued boardmember discussion proposing a different entryway and asking the applicant if they would consider an alternate entryway. Mr. Baker is not sure how to display a different entryway architecturally if they are referring to the landscaping. Further board discussion on possible entryways or removing part of the garage. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA200006 for the following reasons: pursuant to 2.10.2(H)(1)&(2) the Board finds that Granting the variance is not detrimental to the public good nor does it authorize any change in use other than the use that is allowed subject to basic development review and: As stated in subsection 2.10.2 (H) (1) should be approved by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to the property as described by the architect/general contractor based on the topography. There is not a well- defined topo attached, but it’s clear by the drawings that it is a clear drop off to the open space behind. Further, based on the statements of the architect regarding the front area landscaping the Board also finds that the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested will be equally well or better promote the general purpose of the standard pursuant to subsection 2.10.2(H)(2). This Board also notes that the HOA Architectural Review Board of the neighborhood has approved this design. The board further finds that strict compliance to the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or undue hardship upon the occupant of the property – and these hardships were not caused by the act or omission of the occupant. Boardmember McCoy added this development and these large lots do not exist in Fort Collins anymore, which is why we don’t usually see variances like this. Chair Shields emphasized the code intent for a front porch to be a prominent part of architectural design. He is not currently in support of this variance but considers it a fair compromise to request a covered front porch on this house. Gerald and Amy Esch, owners of the property, addressed the board per the board’s request. They have no intent of violating code, they would like a nice home with nice aesthetics. This proposal is the result of many iterations trying to fit within Lemay Avenue Estates HOA requirements. When they applied, they pointed out the garage doors are too far forward and that forced the applicant to meet with the HOA board. The HOA board and the owners gathered at the lot and discussed many possible solutions to fit a ranch house on this lot without a floating garage pushed back over the drop off. Neighbors agreed this proposal would be the best option. They granted an exception to have the garage doors on the front, on the condition that they add a wall in the front to create a patio courtyard. Board discussion regarding an amendment and the approval of the courtyard by the HOA. Vice Chair LaMastra supported the stone wall being in the same stone as the house. Reviewed the document from the HOA. Board also discussed the possibility of a sidewalk going toward the front door to help define the entry.