Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/08/2019Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer 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 AUGUST 8 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Chair Shields called the meeting to order. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by Chair Shields, to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2019 meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190031 – WITHDRAWN 2. APPEAL ZBA190032 – APPROVED Address: 214 Wood Street Owner/Petitioner: Donald Griffith Jr. Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance is to allow a carport to encroach 3.67 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request noting this property corners 2 alleys but is located mid-block. This is a request for a current carport to continue to be in place encroaching into the side-yard setback. The carport is open on 4 sides and does not exceed allowable floor area for the overall lot or the rear half of the lot. The carport does not exceed any height limitations on accessory structures. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 August 8, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked about water runoff. Beals confirmed that the shed roof is angled down to the east and west, both sides drain towards the owner’s property. Applicant Presentation: Donald Griffith Jr., 214 Wood Street, addressed the board. He has been in this house since 1991, and has been parking his car on the gravel in that location for the past 2 years. They have had hail damage on their vehicles in the past and would like protection from the elements. The carport meets all snow loading and wind requirements for Colorado weather. His surrounding neighbors have no issues with the carport. Vice Chair LaMastra asked the owner if this carport was installed without a permit. Mr. Griffith confirmed that was the case, he received some incorrect information and was not aware he needed a permit to build this structure. They are using an existing gate to access the carport. Audience Participation: None. Beals read an email aloud from neighbor, Melina Dempsey, in support of the carport. Board Discussion: Discussion regarding the lot that abuts this carport. Confirmation that is a residential lot, even though there is no structure immediately on the other side of the fence. Long asked if these carports are included in floor area. Beals stated that code changes last year resulted in the square footage of car ports being included in the total floor area. However, even including this carport, the floor area is within limitations. Chair Shields requested additional information on why the building requires a permit. Beals confirmed the carport is over 8 feet tall and over 120 square feet which requires a building permit. In addition, they are required to meet the setbacks. Stockover didn’t see any problem with the carport, this is a long and narrow lot with current gate access. Vice Chair LaMastra had initial concerns with water drainage, but it appears all water will runoff into the owner’s property. Therefore, there is no obvious negative impact for the neighbors. Chair Shields stated he is in support of the proposal. There are two columns that encroach into the setback, which is minimal. Motion: Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA190032 for the following reasons, the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment is 18 feet of 180 foot length of the property line, the carport is open on all 4 sides, the encroachment is for 2 columns and 66 square foot of roof, and the property does not exceed the allowable floor area; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but 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: Long, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA190033 – DENIED Address: 225 Whedbee St. Owner: Daniel Baker Petitioner: David Kaplan Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (D)(5) Project Description: This variance request is for a new accessory building with habitable space. The preferred design requires a variance to exceed the allowable floor area for an accessory building by 700 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet and the proposed total is 1,300 square feet. The design includes 700 square feet of floor area on the first floor and 600 square feet on the upper portion. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there were three different options proposed for this accessory building and the description on the agenda is the most extreme of the three. Option 1 complies with code except for floor area. Currently in an accessory building with the ceiling height under 7.5 feet does not count towards floor area. The ceiling height for option 1 is 8 feet. If the ceiling was dropped to 7.5 feet then it would meet all standards. Option 2 has the additional floor area above, but with a staircase inside the building as Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 August 8, 2019 opposed to outside the building. Option 3 would remove the staircase from the inside, and place it outside along the southside of the building. All options exceed the accessory building square footage allotment. LaMastra asked about the code’s intent regarding the 7.5 foot ceiling height requirement when nothing is changed on the exterior height. Beals believes it was to align with some building code standards and put parameters in place regarding when a space is considered habitable. The City tries to minimize an accessory building being used as a dwelling unit when the lots are smaller in size. Stockover stated that he was on this board when that code passed and remembers referencing the example of large vaulted rooms with a loft sleeping area that did not count towards square footage. The code was trying to define what is counted towards floor area. Chair Shields recalled the building code defines habitable space as a minimum of 7.5 feet ceiling height. Long stated the code was also trying to address elicit garage apartments. Meyer asked about the differences between the three options and why the location of the stairs was moved. Beals explained there is code section that states windows that face an interior sideline should be as minimal as possible. The outside staircase and landing is not out of compliance, but the applicant saw that portion of the code and created another option. They still meet the building height, setbacks, and other design standards. Applicant Presentation: Daniel Baker and Season Baker, 225 Whedbee Street, addressed the board. Option 1 is essentially in compliance if they use a 7.5 foot ceiling, possibly a loft and vaulted ceiling if allowed. Option 2 is adding 100 square feet on the ground floor of the garage. Their goal is to maintain a 600 square foot garage and add an extra 4 feet in width to the building mostly for the stairwell. The upstairs would be 600 square feet. Mr. Baker is sensitive to the massing issues, not looking to exceed the building height. They have a neighbor to the south who has a stairway on the exterior west side of their house which looks right into Mr. Baker’s yard. They would prefer to have this stairway on the inside as to not impose on their neighbors and to increase safety. Vice Chair LaMastra asked the applicant which option is preferred. Mr. Baker stated option 2, that includes a 700 square foot ground floor and the stairway inside the building, with 8 foot or vaulted ceilings. The space will be used for additional living space with their three children, visiting family, and possibly for their home office. Chair Shields confirmed with Mr. Baker they have gone through a conceptual review with city staff. Audience Participation: Ben Leistikow and Ayla Leistikow, 225 Whedbee Street, addressed the board. This project will have a large impact on their property which is directly south of the lot being discussed. They have a ranch style 1950’s house located about 10 feet from the fence. This structure will look directly down into their backyard and into their French doors. Chair Shields asked if they are opposed to option 2 with the enclosed stairway. Mr. Leistikow stated it will still have an impact on their property. Vice Chair LaMastra confirmed that the neighbor’s concern is the windows facing into their property and the lack of privacy. Mr. Leistikow agreed and added that he doesn’t like the height, but it’s not his main concern. Discussion comparing setbacks in the three different options. Chair Shields allowed Mr. Baker back up to the microphone to clarify. Mr. Baker stated on the north side of the lot there are solar setbacks in place, and the new construction will be right against those setbacks. The setback leaves 11 or 12 feet to the south side of their building. Vice Chair LaMastra requested clarifications regarding solar setbacks. Beals explained solar setbacks are in place when a building has a wall height greater than 14 feet in specific residential zone districts. There are additional setbacks required to ensure sunlight still reaches the neighboring properties. Wayne Carpenter, owns 218 Peterson street, but lives outside of city limits. Appreciates that the applicant is trying to improve the neighborhood, but is concerned about the view from the neighbor. However, Mr. Carpenter is most troubled with the nearby alley being paved. In about 1985 the City told them it would be paved. Afterwards the City contacted them again and advised it would not be paved immediately but sometime in the future. Mr. Carpenter would like to figure out how to get the