Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/11/2020 Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing 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 JUNE 11, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the March 12, 2020 Minutes and the May 14, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. There was no hearing in April of 2020. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200018 – APPROVED Address: 806 W. Mulberry St. Owner/Petitioner: Kevin Dewlen Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(3) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum rear floor area by 266.5 square feet. The allowed rear floor area is 907.5 square feet. Of the proposed 345 square foot addition, 112 square feet is located in the rear half. The other 154.5 square feet was previously approved by ZBA1900039. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the previous approval was for a garage and carport located in the rear of the property. The request today is for an addition to the home. This is a smaller lot that was subdivided and this property fronts on W. Mulberry, therefore the majority of the buildings are in the rear half of this lot. The addition will accommodate a new bedroom and backdoor entrance into the house. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 11, 2020 Applicant Presentation: Kevin Dewlen, 806 W. Mulberry Street, addressed the board. The lot is challenging as it is oriented east to west. They are trying to meet the front setback with the new addition and there is a large existing maple tree on the property that they are trying to preserve. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover considers this a simple request and he will be in support. Boardmember Shuff agreed, there are many properties like this in old town and he will also be in support. Boardmember Lawton stated the applicant has done a good job on the proposal, he’ll be in support. Boardmember McCoy, Vice Chair LaMastra, and Boardmember Meyer will all be in support. Chair Shields agreed that the proposal makes sense for the lot and fits the context. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200018 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted 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 with the following findings: the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot overall, the subdivision resulted in a shallow parcel, and the existing primary structure encroaches into the front setback. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Lawton, Shields, Meyer, Stockover, and Shuff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 2. APPEAL ZBA200019 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 2524 W. Plum St. Owner/Petitioner: Adam Musielewicz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c); 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory structure (yurt) in the rear and street side setbacks. The proposed location is 6 feet from the rear (north) property line which is encroaching 9 feet into the required 15 foot rear setback and 8 feet from the street side (west) property line which is encroaching 7 feet into the required street side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner lot on Pear Street and W. Plum Street. The accessory structure would be within the rear setback and the Pear Street side setback, both setbacks are 15 feet from the property lines. The yurt is a circle structure, with a height of 9 feet, 9 inches. There are large evergreen tress currently present on the property to the north, obscuring any view from that direction. Vice Chair LaMastra asked for additional information on the reason for the placement of the accessory structure within the setbacks. She acknowledged a stump in the yard and the trees, but there is still room in the yard. Beals agreed that there is a stump and tree in the yard, but would let the applicant speak to their reasoning for this placement. Boardmember Shuff asked if the yurt will be constructed on top of something else, such as a deck or platform. Chair Shields stated that the packet indicates there will be a platform, they can ask the applicant for details. Applicant Presentation: Adam Musielewicz and Laurel Carter, 2524 W. Plum St., addressed the board. There are limitations on where they can place the yurt. There is a platform needed for the yurt, the space requested is ideal for that space. The deck would be approximately 1.5 feet in height and the yurt would rest on top. They have never applied for a variance before, they consider this a nominal infringement, and neighbors have given their approval. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 June 11, 2020 Vice Chair LaMastra asked about their reasoning for the variance, she does not see a hardship. Also, asked for further explanation why the yurt has to encroach into both setbacks, instead of just one. Mr. Musielewicz responded that shifting it towards the house would be in their view and there is a large maple tree that they are trying to avoid. The yurt is currently proposed in a somewhat open space without tree branches overhead. LaMastra is less concerned with the rear yard setback due to fence and evergreen trees, but doesn’t understand why the yurt couldn’t come further east away from the sideyard setback. Mr. Musielewicz replied they do have a few feet to move it, there are a series of lilac bushes present, but it could go slightly more east. Previously, he didn’t know the setback starts from the property line, which is an additional 4 feet from the sidewalk. Given the setback, it does push the yurt under the tree branches and infringe on the lilac bushes. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the 1.5 feet of deck height and if that is included in the 9 feet, 9 inches in height that was previously mentioned. Mr. Musielewicz replied the 1.5 feet would be in addition to the yurt height. Boardmember Stockover asked if there is a slope from the house to the sidewalk as this could add additional height. Mr. Musielewicz stated there is a slight slope from south to north that goes into the neighboring north property, but it’s nominal, approximately 8-10 inches. Boardmember Meyer asked about the applicant’s decision to construct the yurt versus an addition to the primary structure. Also, if the yurt would be heated and used year round. Mr. Musielewicz explained they do already own a yurt, so it was a natural step to go this route instead of an addition. The intention is to make it year round use and to eventually install a wood burning fireplace. Chair Shields asked about the property line being 4 feet from the back of the sidewalk. Mr. Musielewicz confirmed the same, City Zoning had advised the west side of the property started approximately 4 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. And the fence line starts right along the sidewalk, therefore the property line starts within their fence line, a couple feet within their yard. The distance from the fence to base of the yurt is 11 feet. Boardmember Lawton inquired about the previously purchased yurt. Mr. Musielewicz explained they have always liked yurts and would use it as a potential second office space. His wife is a therapist and would benefit from additional private space. Boardmember Stockover asked about in home occupation located in an outbuilding versus the primary structure. Both Mr. Musielewicz and his wife are working virtually right now, there are no patients coming to their home. Mr. Musielewicz works as a trainer for primary care practitioners, screening for substance use, ensuring that the correct questions are being asked to the patients. Beals added based on the information received the City viewed this as home office space, not home occupation space. Boardmember Meyer asked why the yurt cannot go in the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Musielewicz explained there are 2 trees in the yard in that area. There is also an existing deck that extends out 14 feet from the back of the house. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Chair Shields asked Beals about the side yard setback in this area, Beals confirmed it would be 5 feet from the east interior lot line. Boardmember Stockover stated he does not believe they should be making decisions based on COVID-19. The in-home business is not too concerning, but he doesn’t think that virtual will be the new normal for everything. The height of the structure is troubling. He’s sure the City has regulations on the wood burning stove and the stump can be ground out. Stockover is still deciding his stance on this item. Boardmember Lawton stated he is having trouble rationalizing the setbacks. He does not have issues with the height but is still wrestling with the decision. Boardmember Shuff commented on the 11 feet in height, which is concerning. The accessory structure will have an impact on the view from the street. He understands preserving landscaping but also commented the lilac bushes can be reserved or replanted. There are ways to work within the setback, he is more concerned with the side setback than the rear. Boardmember McCoy is in support of this variance. On the north there are natural buffers and on the west there is practically 15 feet of space and it will appear to be a normal setback. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 11, 2020 Vice Chair LaMastra pointed out the application lists hardship and she does not see one. She agreed with Lawton, there is nearly the setback visually to the west, which would be nominal and inconsequential. She does not see shrubs as a hardship, trees would be different. Shifting the yurt over three feet and having only one variance on this request might be a better solution. Boardmember Meyer agreed with LaMastra that a hardship has not been established. Lilac shrubs are not a hardship, that is a choice. Encroaching 9 feet into a 15 foot setback is not nominal or inconsequential. Meyer would want to see a plan that lays out exactly where trees and the drip rings are located, plus the setbacks, location of deck, and the size of the yurt, to prove why it can’t be located somewhere else on the site. What has been submitted doesn’t provide that information. Vice Chair LaMastra referred to a graphic submitted by the applicant and asked about the measurements. Beals replied the drawing is probably not exactly to scale. Chair Shields commented this would be an easier decision with only the rear setback. However, he is in favor of this variance. The perceived setback is nominal enough for him to approve this. The trees to the north conceal the accessory structure. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the neighbor to the north provided any communication regarding this variance. Beals explained no emails or letters were received directly from the neighbor. Mr. Musielewicz stated the owner of residence to the north lives in Denver, he did discuss this with the neighbor and was given his blessing. This wouldn’t be exclusively an office space. The immediate need is the office space but would be used for other things as well. Vice Chair LaMastra commented that most people are still working from home, that shouldn’t be the board’s focus. Board Discussion on treating the setbacks as separate motions. Shuff would currently approve the north setback and deny the west setback. LaMastra proposed a reduced west setback so there is a perceived 15 feet from the sidewalk, even though it’s an encroachment of 4 feet, this would be equal to or better than. There is a fence but it’s outside the property line, it becomes more nominal and inconsequential. Discussion for hardship or nominal and inconsequential reasoning. Boardmember Stockover commented on the aesthetics of the yurt placement, it would look odd right up next to the house. He does not have a problem with the motion. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve with conditions ZBA200019 because 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 for the following reasons: this is a corner lot and this is treated as a rear setback although it’s more typical of a standard side yard setback of 5 feet, therefore the board feels it is nominal and inconsequential. To address the east side variance, the board recommends approval with the following conditions: the yurt structure should be located 15 feet from the sidewalk. The intent of the approval is the perceived 15 foot setback from the sidewalk. Boardmember Stockover requested to add language that the foundation is no more than 1.5 feet from grade, Shuff accepted that friendly amendment. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, Stockover, and Shuff. Nays: Lawton. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. 3. APPEAL ZBA200020 – APPROVED Address: 609 City Park Ave. Owner: John Papile Petitioner: Mike Rush Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1); 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This request is for a variance to increase the allowable floor area by 93 square feet and to encroach into the required 15 foot side setback by 4 feet 4 inches. Staff Presentation: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 11, 2020 Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is another corner lot and the property is not an exact rectangle. The proposed addition will include the demo of the existing detached garage and the construction of a new attached garage. Car access will be from Crestmore Place. There is an additional space labeled “shop” that has it’s own garage door. The neighboring property also has a driveway along the shared property line. Boardmember Meyer asked about the addition of the garage in the back of the lot, and if that would require a new curbcut. Beals explained that is not part of this proposal, currently there is a rollover curb and a new curbcut would not be required. Also, this property was platted in about 2007 and the site plan included street trees that will need to be planted in this area. The applicant will need to work with forestry to determine where the trees will need to go. Vie Chair LaMastra inquired about the present alley from Crestmore Place. Beals explained this is a vehicle access parcel and he assumes the applicant has rights to use this access. The code language around utilizing an alley when possible would not apply in this case. Boardmember Lawton asked about the utility box location and if it would require any setbacks for the placement of the driveway. Beals explained there is normally a clearance area of about 4 feet for structures around a utility box, but he does not believe this structure will be in proximity. When the owner applies for a building permit, the applicant will have to work with utilities to ensure driveway placement is appropriate. Vice Chair LaMastra commented that having both accesses would be helpful. The applicant might find it easier to come into the garage from the shared access, but backing out and leaving along Crestmore would also seem reasonable. Applicant Presentation: Mike Rush, 2504 Constitution Ave, addressed the board. The south side of existing house encroaches on the 15 foot setback off Crestmore, aligning exactly with the current house. The request for the additional 93 square feet is due to the narrow lot. The plan is designed to fit within the lot and ensure the spaces within are functional. In terms of the overall neighborhood, the addition seems appropriate given the constraints. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover agreed with the access, vehicles moving forward is always a preference for safety. This appears to be a clean remodel, this is a small lot and a reasonable request. Boardmeber Lawton stated this is an improvement for access from Crestmore, he will be in support. Boardmember Shuff agreed, this is nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember McCoy is in favor, this is an improvement for the neighborhood. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the existing house is already encroaching and this makes sense especially given the narrow lot. This is nominal and inconsequential, if there are issues with the access then engineering will handle those, she will be in support. Boradmember Meyer agreed he is in favor, overall the design is an improvement. Chair Shields also agreed. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200020 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good, and 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 with the following findings: the existing structure encroaches into the setback 4 feet 4 inches, the property line is set back 3.5 feet from the property line, and the visual impact of 93 square feet is minimal. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Lawton, Shields, Meyer, Stockover, and Shuff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. **Boardmember Shuff recused himself from the following item.** Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 June 11, 2020 4. APPEAL ZBA200021 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 420 N. Grant Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Gregory Menning Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(1), 4.8(E)(1) Project Description: This request is to return a parcel back to the originally two platted lots to allow two single family homes to be built. This requires a variance to reduce the 40 feet required minimum lot width by 5 feet and reduce the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size by 100 square feet for both lots. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this property is located in the middle of the block on N. Grant Avenue. The request is to restore the original platted lots. The lots were originally 35 feet in width and less in square footage than what we require now. In time, 2 lots were combined to one parcel and a house was constructed. The request is to restore this into 2 separate parcels and 2 platted lots so a new house can be built on each lot. This area was originally platted with an alley centered down the middle of the block. In time, a new alley configuration was put in place that took some square footage away from these lots and created 2 alley access points from Sycamore and Cherry creating a field goal post shaped alley. The future addresses will most likely be 418 N. Grant and 420 N. Grant. This is not a variance request for any structures. When that time comes, the applicant would need to meet setbacks and ratios or come back in front of this board for a separate variance request. The current alley in the back is a dirt alley. There is question as to where the alley proceeds to the north and current conversations with engineering and the surrounding property owners whether the alley impedes onto the property owner’s land. Boardmember Meyer asked about the application materials. It appears the variance request for a lot less than 5,000 square feet only applies to the smaller lot, Beals confirmed the same. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the current structure and if it complies with setbacks and if it will remain or be torn down. Beals explained the setback on the north property line will remain. This will become a legal nonconforming structure. He will let the applicant speak to the current structure and where it is located in relation to the new setbacks. If they restore the lot line then the existing structure becomes legal nonconforming. Vice Chair LaMastra inquired what would happen if the structure was over the lot line, Beals will let the applicant speak to the current location. They can condition the motion to include a demolition of the current building. Boardmember McCoy asked if the lot line was erased and why this doesn’t have to go through the subdivision process. Beals explained it’s a county process to combine parcels. The property was platted and had 2 lots, then the county assigns parcel numbers to each lot. The owner went to the county, explained he owned both lots and requested the county to assign only one parcel number. That parcel is just showing ownership lines and there is assumption made with one parcel number that the both lots will be bought or sold together. The owner now wants to revert back to 2 parcels. This is something they process with the county, but for the City to acknowledge the lot line restoration the owner has to apply for a variance since the lots do not meet our current standards. Applicant Presentation: Gregory Menning, 420 N. Grant Ave, addressed the board. Mr. Menning has not done a survey, but he does not believe the setback to the north with the current primary structure is going to be an issue. The 5 foot exception seems reasonable since there are many other examples of this in the area and this will improve the neighborhood. Vice Chair LaMastra requested clarification regarding where the primary structure is placed. Mr. Menning replied that it is on 420 N. Grant but situated more towards the south of the lot, towards 418 N. Grant. LaMastra asked if the structure might straddle the lot line, Mr. Menning agreed it would. Beals discussed a condition where the current structure would have to be removed/demolished before new structures can be constructed. Either additional modifications or a demo would be required. This is not the first time they have seen a structure cross a lot line. Mr. Menning confirmed he is currently living in the house. He also plans to demolish the current structure in September and build the 2 new structures simultaneously, one on each new lot. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 June 11, 2020 Boardmember Meyer inquired what next steps would be needed if this is approved by the board. Would this be a site plan review or development review, and would they need to discuss the approvals for the current structure not in compliance with new setbacks. Beals explained this was the original plat at this density, they are simply restoring the lot back to its original state. Vice Chair LaMastra stated they may need to include a timeframe for the demolition to avoid the owner coming back numerous times for modifications. Beals confirmed if the applicant doesn’t pull appropriate building permits within 6 months they would need to file for an extension or come back for another approval by this board. Boardmember Stockover stated the request is to split this parcel into 2 lots, the setback requirements aren’t an issue until 418 Grant Ave is built. Vice Chair LaMastra disagreed, if they approve this then they have created an issue with a structure established over a lot line. If something changes and the applicant decides not to move forward with building the second house, this structure is out of compliance and was not approved to be placed in these setbacks. Further board discussion regarding order of events and timeline regarding the demolition of the current structure and construction of new structures. Boardmember Lawton asked if the utilities are already setup for the address 418 versus 420. Beals explained they would be tapping into those from the street, that would be addressed at the time of building permit. Boardmember Lawton commented that takes more time to complete. He agreed if they approve this without a timeframe then they approve a structure that is already noncompliant. Continued Boardmember discussion regarding the timeline and demo of the current structure. Boardmember Stockover commented this should be simple and at the time 418 develops, 420 needs to come into compliance or be demolished. It’s ok to have non-conforming smaller lots and placing a six month timeframe on this property is concerning. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Chair Shields agreed with Stockover’s proposed condition. Vice Chair LaMastra has concerns if this is approved and the county moves forward, the owner could decide to sell one of the properties. The new owner then tries to pull a permit for the new property but the current house still needs to be demolished for them to receive a permit. What condition could they propose that would cover all scenarios. Beals would assume the seller would have to disclose the information to a potential buyer, the new owner can’t do anything until this house is demolished. The new owner would also need to go before this board if they are not in compliance. The new buyer should be aware of the conditions of the property. Boardmember Stockover stated the one piece that is missing is a current survey. Board discussion regarding tabling this item and requiring a survey. Boardmember McCoy stated they are overthinking this. The applicant stated he is going to build 2 houses on 2 parcels. That would require the original structure to be removed. These are the original platted lots. There is no reason not to approve this variance. Chair Shields would be in support of this variance. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve with condition ZBA200021 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted 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, with the following findings: the reduction in width and lot size restores the original platted lots, other lots on the block and in the neighborhood developed to the same size, and any new structure will still meet the required setbacks in the zoning district, noting the following condition that before any construction is issued for 418 N Grant Ave, 420 N Grant Ave comes into compliance with all zoning setback requirements. Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Lawton, Shields, and Stockover. Nays: Meyer THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 June 11, 2020 • OTHER BUSINESS There will be a transition among support staff. Kacee Scheidenhelm will be training Jennifer Luther as the Board’s secretary. • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning