Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/12/2019 Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Bob Long 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 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the August 8, 2019 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190035 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 5109 S. Shields Street Owner/Petitioner: Dale & Fay Baker Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(b)&(d) Project Description: This variance request is for a one-story addition to the existing house. The addition proposes to match the front setback of the existing structure which is a 30 foot encroachment into the 30 foot front setback and to match the existing side setback which is a 5 foot encroachment into the 20 foot side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this lot has a unique almost L-shape. There is an existing house on the property that already sits on the front setback. Originally this was built in the county and annexed in afterwards. Beals has spoken with the engineering department, and currently there are no plans for a capital expansion project to widen this road. However, this could always happen at a later date. Any buildings placed directly on the property ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 September 12, 2019 line make it difficult to widen city streets in the future. There is only one driveway access, shared with the property to the south. There is also a request to get an additional driveway access to the north of the building. If the board approves this request, staff recommends at least a 5-foot setback along Shields as it’s extremely difficult to add street improvements when structures are located along the property line. Meyer asked if there are any other structures in close proximity to Shields in this area. Beals replied other structures are not as close to the property line in the immediate vicinity. Meyer inquired if the location of the existing house will cause issues if there is a future expansion. Beals says it is a possibility. Shields asked about adding a sidewalk along this property. Capital Improvements look at the whole context of the street and are as sensitive as possible in these situations. McCoy requested clarification regarding the lot line to the north, the right of way is inconsistent. Beals replied that this happens all over town. As properties develop and the right of way is requested afterwards, this requires developers to add improvements. This house hasn’t had any development since annexation and therefore no opportunity to declare the right of way. Applicant Presentation: Fay, Dale and Tessa Baker, 5109 S. Shields Street, addressed the board. Fay Baker explained there is an irrigation ditch along the southwestern side of the home, therefore the only area to expand is in the northeast corner. The neighbor to the south is a historic milking parlor, that structure would also be located in the setback. Vice Chair LaMastra requested clarification on the use of this addition and the request for additional access off of Shields. Tessa Baker explained the addition is simply to add more square footage, the house is currently 1200 square feet and was built in 1920. After renovations, only the shell of the house is original. The access is being requested because there is no other way to get onto the property due to the ditch and fencing. Currently there is no car access, only foot bridges. The additional access would be for emergency vehicles; the owners would still use the bridges to access the house. When the property was annexed in 1989 only the minimum was left as their property. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Mccoy asked if there is a typical setback during an annexation. Beals explained for building structures, the setback in the Urban Estate zone is 30 feet. McCoy would like more information on the difference in lot lines among the properties. Beals estimated that the ultimate right of way will be from property line to property line on either side of Shields. The city obtains additional right of way when properties develop or get replatted. Right of way area is requested afterwards, this has not yet been replatted. If that happens in the future, the property owner will be required to dedicate the additional right of way. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the structure along the east property line. Tessa Baker confirmed this was an old porch, that was previously enclose and is currently part of the great room. The front door is on the south side of the house. Chair Shields questioned how many lanes are currently on Shields at this location and how much space is present between the property line and the curb. Beals believes this is one lane in both directions with a middle turn lane. There is vegetation between the edge of asphalt and the property line. Applicant confirmed that the road drops off along this edge. Vice Chair LaMastra requested the proximity of this property to the growth management area on the south side of Fort Collins. Beals doesn’t have that already mapped to give exact distance, will follow up. Stockover has past experience with a homestead on a dirt road, built with no property setbacks. The first property to develop on each side of the road establishes the setback at the current road standard. The first one to develop sets the edge for that side, leaving the other side at a disadvantage. This is part of the natural progression of growth. In the future if Shields is expanded to be 4 lanes wide, then the City will either buy the property or imminent domain the whole house. All utilities will be underground, which will not affect the height of the wall at the property line. However, overhanging eve height is a concern. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 September 12, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra questioned the final grade after Shields is widened. Could the finished floor elevation potentially be below a sidewalk elevation. Discussion regarding the natural progression of widening the street. Vice Chair LaMastra pointed out if the board allows this addition and the City ends up having to purchase this property, then there is an additional burden placed on the City regarding how much is paid to the land owners. Beals followed up on the location of the growth management area, explaining that is still pretty far south of Trilby. Chair Shields explained he has a strong hesitation to put any structure directly on the property line. He agreed with the concern of the eave location and drainage from the roof. Typically an eave is not past 30 inches from the house. Shields would suggest a three foot setback at a minimum. Shuff agreed with Stockover, whatever happens will happen regardless of their decision today. The eave directly on the property line would be challenging to work with, he would be in support of a 2 to 3 foot setback. Meyer agreed with the concern of the overhang. Stockover referred to the aerial view. If Shields is expanded, it could still remain two lanes with bike paths, or it could be expanded to 4 lanes which would create a bigger issue. Discussion confirming this is a one story addition, not two stories. Vice Chair LaMastra is not sure that a setback of 5 feet or 3 feet accomplishes anything for the final solution. If the final build out is a 4 lane arterial street with a sidewalk directly next to the window of their house, this is problematic for the condition and the grades. This will be a problem no matter what. Discussion regarding the motion and approval process of the addition. Discussion regarding the wall along the right of way, and that it does not need to be upgraded regarding fire rating. Chair Shields reiterated that he does not want to see the addition built on the property line. If the foundation is laid incorrectly that would cause new problems. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA190035 for the following reasons, the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, it is nominal and inconsequential in context of the neighborhood, the existing house already sits 0 feet to the front setback and 15 feet to the side setback, the addition is 21 feet in length along the 130 foot width of the front property line, most of the entire house is built into the setback making it difficult for any addition to comply, there is a ditch that runs close to the house both on the west and south side. Also, this house was built in 1920, before the need for a right of way was established, and we are not setting a precedence as there are numerous examples like this throughout the city. The city has the ability to acquire easements and setbacks as streets oversize. With the condition that no part of the building overhangs the property line including the eave structure or water downspouts. Yeas: Shuff, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: Meyer, LaMastra and Shields. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS. The Chair allowed the applicant to address the board again. Dale Baker explained there is already the established line of the house and to extend that line does not make any difference. They are not going further into the setback. Chair Shields asked the applicant if they know how they would keep the overhang inside the property line. Mr. Baker responded they would first need to understand where the property line is located, then they would work from that line. This could be done with zero overhang or a gutter along the edge. Tessa Baker explained they do all their own work on the house and pull all their own permits, as they try to update the remodeling from 1970. They know the process of obtaining the survey, having pins established and ensuring they do not go over the lines. A foot or two makes a big difference in a tiny house. Chair Shields stated if the applicant is confident they can achieve what they need and not go over the property line, he could support this. Vice Chair LaMastra pointed out this is a right of way property line, not a side yard. She acknowledge that there is an existing structure, but approval would mean continuing to compound a situation along the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 September 12, 2019 Shuff would support a condition of a setback 18 inches to 2 feet. This makes sense for the cost of construction and allows for some room for a gutter. The impact is minimal. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA190035 with the following findings: the variance with condition is not detrimental to the public good, the existing house already sits 0 feet off the front setback and 15 feet to the side setback, the addition is 21 feet in length along the 130 foot width of the front property line, most of entire house is built into the setback making it difficult for any addition to comply, there is a ditch that runs close to the house both on the west and south side, the finding that we are not setting a precedence as this occurs throughout the city as streets oversize and capital improvement projects come forth and with the condition that the entire addition is a minimum of 12 inches from property line. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. 2. APPEAL ZBA190036 – CONTINUED Address: 2307 Stonegate Drive Owner/Petitioner: Captain & Kathleen Payne Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4 (D)(2)(c & d) Project Description: This variance request is to construct a carport which encroaches 2 feet into the 15 foot rear setback and 1 foot into the 15 foot side street setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner property. The rear setback is the shared property line abutting the neighbor’s side setback. Most properties along this block have a 20 foot setback because it is their front setback. If board is in favor of the setbacks, staff recommends to maintain the 15 foot setback along Sunstone, more flexibility can be granted for the rear setback. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned if as a PUD it has been verified that the owner is allowed to take more than one access onto their property from 2 different right of ways. Beals did consult the City’s engineering department and it would be permissible at this point, especially with the rollover curb present. There is also a specified distance the driveways must be located from the intersection. Applicant Presentation: Captain & Kathleen Payne, 2307 Stonegate Drive, addressed the board. Currently, Mr. Payne has a shop in his garage and no room for a vehicle. Since living in this house they have had considerable vehicle maintenance cost from hail damage, pine sap, sprinkler system and winter conditions. They cannot move the garage closer to the house, because the air conditioning unit and all utilities are located on that side of the house. Ms. Payne said at the time they submitted the plan, they were not sure if they would prefer a carport or garage. After speaking with the neighbors, some indicated they would prefer a garage and that is now their proposal. If the proposal is not approved, they would be forced to do something more temporary and less desired by the neighborhood. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are meters on that side of the house. Applicant confirmed the same. The city has confirmed that the clearances proposed are acceptable. Meyer questioned why the applicant would not clear out the shop top be used for vehicles and build a new shop that meets required setbacks. The applicant replied the shop would be too small and would cost a lot more money. Chair Shields asked about pivoting the lower right corner of the structure to meet 15 foot setback. The applicant thinks it would look weird at that angle and there is a large tree nearby. Also, the garage would be too small. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated this seems nominal and inconsequential. She acknowledged the placement of the garage regarding utilities and stated this appears to be the smallest size of structure while still being functional. The adjacent neighbor supports the garage and it will be aesthetically Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 September 12, 2019 consistent. Her concern and proposed condition is to verify multiple access points are allowed onto a single lot. Beals received an email the night prior, which he read into the record. Ben James, 2242 Stonegate Drive, supports the variance as a garage but not as a carport. Vice Chair LaMastra asked the applicant about the roof as it appears flat on the elevation. Mr. Payne confirmed the garage roof will be pitched and it would match the house. Stockover stated the construction of this garage changes the character of the neighborhood. It flies against City Plan and the continuity of the neighborhood. The car conditions are not an applicable reason for this approval. The current garage being taken up by their own business is a self-imposed hardship. Even though the neighbors have been notified, they might not fully understand how this will change the neighborhood. Mr. Payne was allowed to address the board, and stated the neighbors behind him in a cul-de-sac also have a detached garage and there are a couple more examples in the area. Stockover added before he can be supportive of this proposal he would need to see architectural drawings. A carport can be taken down, a garage cannot. This addition can truly change the character of the neighborhood, especially on a corner lot. In addition, the proximity to tree roots needs to be a concern. Meyer asked about the maximum allowable square footage on this lot. Beals replied this is not like the conservation zone districts, here it is one third of the lot size. The definition of floor area excludes the first 720 square feet of vehicle use or storage. They are not exceeding their limit even with this garage. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the submittal is not a clear representation of what is being proposed. Seeing elevations that include how the pitch of the roof works with the current house would be helpful. Shuff was not as concerned about the rear yard setback, more concerned with the front. There is an impact from the urban street edge stand point. There is a challenge with the dimensions of the current garage and location of utilities, but there is also a setback requirement and not enough evidence to justify this encroachment. Chair Shields agreed. It does become difficult to approve something that is lacking in detail. Typically for garages there is a 20 foot setback to keep the car off the sidewalk. Shields would prefer to see the garage meet the setback requirements or see more detail. Stockover would like to confirm driveway requirements as well. No boardmembers were willing to make a motion to approve. Stockover asked the applicant if he would like the opportunity to come in front of the board again with a more detailed application. Mr. Payne confirmed he would. He also stated that he spoke with neighbors, they were all in support of the garage. Boardmembers provided guidance on what they are looking for during the hearing. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to continue ZBA190036 to a future hearing and ask that the applicant bring more detailed architectural drawings. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED. 3. APPEAL ZBA190037 – APPROVED Address: 207 N. Grant Ave Owner Matt Fater Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: This variance request is to construct an addition which encroaches 8 feet 3-1/2 inches into the required 15 foot rear setback. Staff Presentation: *Note, Boardmember Shuff recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 September 12, 2019 Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this lot corners N. Grant and an alley. Where the addition would be located, the abutting lot that shares this property line has a side-setback as opposed to a rear setback. There is an existing structure that would be removed to make room for this addition. Proposed addition does not exceed the floor area required for the overall lot or for the rear half. Therefore, the only item to address is the setback. This lot is approximately 4900 square feet, which is less than the minimum required lot size of 5000 square feet. Applicant Presentation: Heidi Shuff, with Studio S Architecture, addressed the board. The goal of the project is to change the existing house as little as possible, and to enlarge the kitchen and living room, and create a new dining room and master suite off the back. Due to the current layout, adding onto the south side would block all the natural light from the living space. The neighboring property to the west enjoys a 5 foot setback that is also the homeowners rear property line. The existing sunroom that is to be removed already encroaches within the 15 foot rear yard setback. This addition would add an additional 3 feet 3 inches onto what is already existing. This is still well within the total allowable square footage for the lot. This is a one story addition and the neighboring properties are also one story. Matt Fater, 207 N. Grant Avenue, addressed the board. He has lived at this residence for 17 years, would like this addition to continue residing there for another 10-20 years. This is a modest addition relative to the allowable square footage on the property. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated the challenges when one lot has a rear yard abutting a side yard. There is no adjacent structure present and it makes sense to not expand to the south given the house layout. Meyer considered this a thoughtful proposal. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190037 for the following reasons, this is not detreimental to the public good, the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area for the overall lot or rear half, the addition is a one story matching the existing structure as well as the adjacent structures, and the abutting west property line has a 5 foot setback from the shared property line, therefore this 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 which is contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED. 4. APPEAL ZBA190038 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 414 N Loomis Owner/Petitioner: Jim & Theresa Frith Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(2)(b)1. Project Description: This variance is for a proposed accessory building. The eave height along the side lot lines are 16 feet 10 inches tall on both the north and south side of the structure, maximum eave height allowed is 13 feet 6 inches. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a unique shaped lot. Part of the alleyways surrounding the lot have been vacated causing a longer lot size with a slight jog in the back, giving the property alley access into the side lot line as opposed to the rear lot line. The accessory building being proposed would be used for a garage and habitable space above. The eave height would normally be 10 or 13 feet, but they are looking to increase that eave height based on how the building is pitched. They would like a higher eave height that is facing both the north and south (side) property lines. Also with accessory buildings that have habitable space, the code encourages no windows or decks looming into side property lines. If the board is proposing approval, staff recommends a condition that the windows be limited to a clear story Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 September 12, 2019 window, higher in nature, that allows sunlight to enter but does not give the gazing affect onto the abutting property. Applicant Presentation: Massey Brooks with Smash Design, architect representing the petitioner, addressed the board. They have made every effort to maintain code standards and the intent of the code within this unique situation. The side yard with alley access requires a unique design solution to fit a car and have space above. The windows on the south side facing the alley, require an egress window with escape capability which looks directly down the alley and not into any neighboring property. The window on the north side is in a bathroom and has to be large enough to vent properly. If the window has to be a clear story, they request that it’s a translucent window as opposed to clear window. Their priority is ease of access in case of an emergency. The top eave height along the perimeter of the roof is 13 foot 6 inches. Normally the standard is at the 5 foot side yard setback the height can be 13 feet, but for every one foot stepped back from the setback you can go up an additional 6 inches, which is why the eave is at 13 feet 6 inches. The only deviation from that is the gable end, that is required due to the unique shape of the lot and where the garage door must be located. Chair Shields asked for clarity regarding the ventilation requirement in the bathroom. Mr. Brooks spoke to the code requirements of a mechanical ventilation system versus window ventilation. Stockover mentioned when the window is open it is no longer translucent. McCoy asked how this space is being used above the garage. Mr. Brooks replied this is additional living space, likely an air B&B, which is allowed in this zoning district. Boardmembers spoke about the option of a mechanical ventilation system, Mr. Brooks confirmed this is a possibility as well. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shuff asked about the recent code change regarding dormers on eave height. Beals confirmed the dormers are restricted to be a quarter of the length of the wall. Shuff pointed out this elevation is small in width. There are potentially other options, but they could have more impact. The elevation is small enough, Shuff has no problem with it. The window is a recommendation, but he would still prefer a high window. Shields agreed. LaMastra agreed with Stockover, this needs to be an operable clear story window or add a fan. Boardmember Shields made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve with condition ZBA190038, the condition being the fenestration on the north side of the structure is limited to a clear story window, and find that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the shorter width of the garage faces the side lot lines, the structure is set back beyond the minimum 5 foot side yard setback, the alley dedication and vacation left a unique shaped parcel, eave height varies from 13.5 to 16.78 feet, 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: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. •OTHER BUSINESS •ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning