Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/09/2020 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: 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 JANUARY 9, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL PRESENT: La Mastra, Shuff, Meyer, McCoy, Stockover, Lawton, and Shields ABSENT: None • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra to approve the December 12, 2019 meeting minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190049 – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 710 W. Mulberry Street Owner/Petitioner: Jesse Struckhoff Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: The variance request is to allow an attached carport to encroach 14.5 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the north property line is the rear yard setback which is required to be 15 feet. He stated the request is to build ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 January 9, 2020 a carport over an existing driveway that would extend the full length of the house and encroach 14.5 feet into the 15-foot setback. He noted an existing accessory structure exists. Shields asked if it is known when the accessory garage structure was built. Beals replied in the negative. Applicant Presentation: Jesse Struckhoff, 710 W Mulberry Street, stated there is a common wall shared with the neighbor to the east in the accessory garage building. He noted the house is 14 feet, 8 inches off the property line and stated there are not a lot of options with such a small lot. Lawton asked if there are two garage entrances in the existing accessory structure. Mr. Struckhoff replied in the affirmative and stated he has access to a one-car garage off Mulberry and his neighbor to the east has access to the other part. He stated the raised floor of the building makes it impossible to drive into. Stockover asked if the elevation of any part of the building is changing as part of Mr. Struckhoff's remodel. Mr. Struckhoff replied in the negative and stated the building footprint and height will remain the same. Shields asked Mr. Struckhoff if he knew when the accessory structure was built. Mr. Struckhoff replied the house was built in 1933 and he was unsure if the structure was built then or later. Stockover asked Mr. Struckhoff if he has talked to his neighbor across the fence. Mr. Struckhoff replied in the affirmative and stated the neighbor is not opposed. He noted he will be replacing the shared fence as part of his remodel and stated the neighbor will not be able to see the carport structure. Lawton asked if the carport is only coverage for a car. Mr. Struckhoff replied in the affirmative. Stockover asked if the carport will be enclosed parallel to the fence. Mr. Struckhoff replied it will be open and the new fence will be about 6 feet high. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover stated the proposed carport is excessive, long, and right up against the fence; however, it does seem relatively minor in his opinion and the affected neighbor does not mind. He stated the roof of the house will be more visible than the roof of the carport. Lawton commented on the fact that this is on the north side of the property noting there will be significant amounts of snow on the carport's roof for some time; therefore, abatement for runoff will be important. He suggested there could be other parking capabilities in the shared garage and stated doing this for convenience does not seem to be enough of a reason to grant a variance. Shuff stated the lot does provide a hardship; however, he expressed concern about the proposed close distance to the property line. He agreed the visibility of the structure will be limited but expressed concern about setting a precedent with the large exception to the setback. Stockover stated each variance request stands on its own and noted there is already an existing non- conforming setback. LaMastra asked about the existing garage floor elevation issue. Mr. Struckhoff replied the original floor was wood, but it is now concrete. The door opening is about 7 feet wide and is too small to fit a modern vehicle. He also noted all materials used would be fire rated per building codes. Shields stated the proposal is low impact in the context of the neighboring property, though it is closer to the property line that he would prefer. Meyer stated the small lot size does provide a hardship; however, there is already a garage/shop on the property and he is not convinced it cannot be transformed into a functional garage. He also noted the proposed carport is the same width as the shop. McCoy stated this is not objectionable as the garage of the property to the east is right on the property line and the existing structure will block the carport from view of the property to the north, LaMastra stated the lot is obviously very tight which does create a hardship. She also noted converting the existing shop into a garage would create the need for another structure to house the shop items. She stated one could not build another structure on the lot without encroaching into setbacks somewhere. She stated her biggest concern is snow and rain runoff for the adjacent Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 January 9, 2020 property and stated gutters should be appropriately sized and covered. She stated she would support the request. Stockover agreed with LaMastra regarding gutter needs. LaMastra stated there may need to be 2 drain spouts and a drain pan along the fence. Lawton commented on the applicant's ability to place a carport on the patio area. Stockover stated that would not be an improvement as it would make the entire lot concrete. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190049 to allow an attached carport to encroach 14.5 feet into the required 15-foot rear yard setback finding that there is a hardship on the lot which would not allow covered parking elsewhere, and that this is nominal an inconsequential in the context of the adjoining lots given their accessory structures that are close to the property line as well, that the variance will further advance the purposes of the Land Use Code, and with conditions that the applicant provide covered, 6-inch gutters and a drain pan running along the sides of the driveway to limit any drainage issues with the adjoining lot. Stockover noted there is also no neighborhood opposition. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: Shuff and Lawton. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA190050 – DENIED Address: 224 W. Harmony Road Owner: Moreland Properties LLC Petitioner: Mark Bruder, Schlosser Signs Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (G) Table (G)(2) Project Description: This is a variance request to install a 12-foot-tall free-standing sign encroaching 11 feet into the required 15-foot setback from the public right-of-way. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property has been recently redeveloped as a car dealership. In the development process, there was an original setback, then public right-of-way was placed for a sidewalk and the new property line moved in further. Beals noted a sign permit was approved for the proposed sign to be at this location which would have met the setback prior to the change for the sidewalk. The newly proposed sign is in a different location and its height does not meet setback requirement. Beals discussed the existing permitted signs and provided an illustration of the proposed sign which has a significant base that could be shortened to meet code. Lawton asked what height would be acceptable. Beals replied a 7-foot sign would be acceptable for a sign zero to five feet from the property line. Applicant Presentation: Brian Burn, Schlosser Signs, stated the original location of the sign will no longer work due to the installation of a water control valve and inability to dig in the area. He stated the sign has already been built at a cost of $26,000 and not allowing its installation would be a hardship for the car dealership. LaMastra asked if the water valve was indicated on the plans reviewed by Schlosser Signs. Mr. Burn replied in the negative and stated he was not made aware of the valve until he arrived to install the sign. Shields asked about the material used in the base of the sign. Mr. Burn replied it is 1/8-inch aluminum with 4 by 4 steel tubes on either side. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: LaMastra stated she sites signs and utilities should all be on the plans as signs require footings to be dug. She stated the error here seems to be a self-imposed hardship; therefore, she would not support the requested variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 January 9, 2020 Stockover stated it is obvious the location is a Jeep dealership and the base of the sign could be shortened. LaMastra stated the new location for the sign is better than the original for northbound and southbound traffic. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to deny Appeal ZBA190050 for the following reasons: insufficient evidence has been provided to determine that the proposal is not detrimental to the public good, insufficient evidence has been provided to establish a unique hardship to property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard as it appears the sign base can be reduced in height, and insufficient evidence has been provided to show how the proposal supports the standards in a way equal to or better than a complying proposal. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA190051 – APPROVED Address: 1418 West Oak Street Owner: Barbara Hoehn Petitioner: Jeff Gaines, HighCraft Builders Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)3.; 4.7(F)(1)(e), Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory structure that will include both a garage and habitable space and requires two variances. The first variance is to allow an additional 503 square feet of floor area to the lot when the maximum floor area allowance is 4,525 square feet. The second variance is to allow a 2-story accessory structure when only a 1 1/2 story is permitted. Code requires 40% of the floor area of the "2nd story" should have a ceiling height of less than 5 feet. This proposal would have 0% under 5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request and code requirements for the property. He noted the existing primary structure already exceeds the allotted floor area for the lot. He detailed the proposed structure and showed photos of existing accessory structures in the area. Shuff asked about the diagram showing the 12-foot eave height. Beals confirmed the measurement occurs from the intersection of the wall and eave. Beals clarified none of the second story of the proposed building counts as floor area as the ceiling height is less than 7.5 feet. It does count as habitable space, however. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Gaines, HighCraft Builders, stated this structure is intended to replace the previously demolished garage, which was about 465 square feet. He detailed the proposed design of the structure noting it includes an interior stairway. He stated several factors support the proposed 600 square foot footprint of the new structure being nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood, including the fact that the lot will remain fairly open. He discussed the half-story definition and proposed second story. He stated the overall bulk of the building is equivalent to or less than the half-story envelope especially considering the additional dormers allowed in the zone. Mr. Gaines noted the setbacks around the structure are generous to reduce potential looming and provide buffering. He showed photos of a similar structure in the NCL zone. Barbara Hoehn stated she has lived at this house for 40 years and is making these improvements to modernize the property. She stated her goal is to make the structure match the house with a hip roof rather than a gabled roof. She discussed the history of the house and noted the previous garage was built for Model T's. Lawton asked if the upper level will have facilities and normal plumbing. Ms. Hoehn replied it is to be unfinished and will not be habitable, though there will be a bathroom. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 January 9, 2020 Audience Participation: Beals noted the Board did receive three pieces of written communication. Jack Coman stated he lives directly across the alley from this property and he and his wife do have some significant concerns about the proposed structure. He stated he is confused as to what the building actually is. He stated the size of the building is out of character with the neighborhood and there is no need for it to include habitable space. He stated an artist's studio could be built with far less square footage and he expressed concern about the building obliterating his view. Beals stated this is considered an accessory building with habitable space, which means the building has water and/or sewer to it. It is not defined as a dwelling unit, just habitable space for the use of the primary building's owner. A cooking appliance would be required to make the space be considered a dwelling unit, and that would go before a different decision maker. Board Discussion: Shuff stated the floor area ratio of just the house is about 31%, and with the garage would be about 35%. He noted the lot is quite large and a floor area ratio increase may be justified. LaMastra stated the issue of including the additional habitable space is fueling the problem for the 2nd request. She stated the proposed design is better for the neighbors than a structure with a gabled roof that meets code requirements. She stated the 5% increase in floor area is nominal and inconsequential given the size of the lot and large setbacks. Lawton agreed the setbacks are helpful Stockover asked if the owner is renting out rooms in the home. Beals replied multi-family standards come into play when there are more than two dwelling units. He stated there is a question as to the number of dwelling units in the primary building based on the number of kitchens and entrances; therefore, the Chief Building Official has provided a notice of violation to the property owner on that issue. Parking requirements for multi-family would not apply unless the property was reclassified as multi-family; however, this zone district does not allow duplexes, only single-family and a carriage house. Stockover asked if the carriage house could become a short-term rental. Beals replied the property would need to go through the short-term rental licensing process and this zone district only allows primary short-term rentals which means the owner lives on the property, and the structure would need to be permitted for occupancy. He stated the property would be meeting the requirements for short- term rental parking as those requirements are the same as for single-family residences. LaMastra noted the concerns related to the primary residence are outside the purview of the Board. She asked if porte cocheres count as floor area. Beals replied in the affirmative. Mr. Gaines stated his square footage measurement did not include the porte cochere noting it is relatively shallow. Meyer stated this would be an easier decision if the structure were a single-story garage with a hipped roof. However, he expressed concern about the second variance request. LaMastra noted the lot is quite large with massive setbacks. McCoy agreed and stated the first variance seems inconsequential as this is replacing a previously existing structure. He stated he sympathizes with the neighborhood, but the design is good and he would support both variances. LaMastra discussed the proposal as being contextually appropriate for the architecture of the existing home, however, it seems not to be contextually in line with the other existing structures, and it is still 3-feet lower than what is allowed by code if a gabled roof were used. Shields stated this structure is equal to or better than what could be built. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve the first variance to allow an additional 503 square feet of floor area for Appeal ZBA190051 for the following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, there was previous accessory building in this location, and the new accessory building will meet the required setbacks; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standards 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, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 January 9, 2020 Shields stated the proposal is equal to or better than a complying proposal from a massing perspective. Shuff agreed but stated properties with multiple variances do place additional stress on adjacent properties. Stockover asked if the Board could condition the approval to ensure the space can never be habitable. VanHall advised against mixing codes as there would be a separate process and decision maker for a short-term rental. Stockover noted that is the main concern of neighbors and stated it would be prudent for the Board to express that it would not recommend the property be allowed to be a short-term rental. Stockover asked if the neighborhood receives notice when a short-term rental is being considered. Beals replied in the negative. Shuff stated the Board cannot make a decision based on whether that would occur in the future. He also stated he does not believe short-term rentals are allowed in this zone. Beals confirmed new short-term rentals are not allowed in this zone district. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the second variance request for Appeal ZBA190051 to allow a 2-story accessory structure, finding that the request is equal to or better than a complying plan, as presented and designed, in the context of lot architecture and the block, and that that the overall structure is three feet lower than height than what is allowed by code; therefore the plan promotes the general purpose and standard as a compliant proposal. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 4. APPEAL ZBA190052 – APPROVED Address: 132 Bryan Avenue Owner: Holly E Field Trust Petitioner: Holly Field Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(2) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a covered porch to encroach 2 feet into the required 15-foot front yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there is an existing covered stoop. He stated the proposed porch is open on three sides and is completely covered by a roof. Applicant Presentation: Tom Canible, builder for the project, stated the home two doors to the north has a porch with a 2-foot encroachment as well. Audience Participation: Beals stated he received one phone call from real estate agent asking about the request, but he heard nothing further upon providing him with the information. Board Discussion: Shuff stated this is not detrimental to the public good and is inconsequential given contextual setbacks. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve Appeal ZBA190052 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to public good, the proposed porch is open on three sides, and the public sidewalk is further from the front property line providing additional setback; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standards 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, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 January 9, 2020 •OTHER BUSINESS McCoy made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to nominate Shields as Chair. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to nominate LaMastra as Vice Chair. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. •ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning