Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/08/2021 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 APRIL 8, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Boardmembers except LaMastra and Stockover were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve the March 11, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously, with Shuff abstaining. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210010 – APPROVED Address: 119 N. Shields St Owner/Petitioner: Julie Mote Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(6) Project Description: This is a request to build a 792 square foot floor area accessory building which exceeds the 600 square feet of allowed floor area by 192 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is just north of Beavers Market near the intersection of Shields and Mountain. The lots are long and skinny, different from traditional Old Town lots. There are significant trees on the property. Request is for a garage. From the public right of way, it would look like a one car garage. Gables will be facing east and west. There is a driveway that extends to access the garage. Vehicle access will be from the south. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 April 8, 2021 Chair Shields asked if a habitable accessory building is allowed to be built. Beals noted that it could go up to 1000 sf of floor area but is limited to 600 sf of footprint. Lawton asked about the neighbor letter and was wondering which neighbor was in support. Beals noted that the applicant could answer this. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Julie Mote, 119 N Shields St, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. There is no on-street parking on Shields and this is why they are looking to build the garage. Applicant confirmed that the neighbor to the south wrote a letter in approval of this. She also stated that she spoke to all of her neighbors and got positive feedback from all. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff has a bit of a concern with the neighbor to the North, but it is not a big concern and will be in support. Boardmember Lawton thinks this is reasonable given the parking constraints and the large lot. He will be in support. Boardmember Meyer appreciates that they are condensing the buildings into one. Boardmembers Shields and McCoy will also be in support. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve ZBA210010 for the following reasons: Based on the findings of code section 2.10.4(H), The variance is not detrimental to the public good the width as seen from the public right of way (street) is the same size as a two-car garage, the proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot, the eave is 9 feet in height along the side lot line, which is permissible for an accessory structure, and the proposed structure meets the required setbacks including solar setbacks. 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shields, McCoy and Shuff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210011- APPROVED, with condition Address: 421 E. Laurel St. Owner: Patricia and Nick Quinn Petitioner: Kristin Zuro Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: This is a request for a variance for an addition to the primary structure to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 3,246 square feet by 295 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is near the corner of Whedbee and E. Plum. The request is to remove an existing addition and build a larger one-story addition. The existing floor area is already over what is allowed, and the request is to rebuild what they are already over and build an addition over the patio area. The addition is hardly visible from the front right of way. It would be more visible from the east and west abutting properties. He explained the differences in the way the building code and zoning code calculates habitable space. The addition would be entirely one story but the exact elevations were not provided. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 April 8, 2021 Boardmember Shuff questioned whether the land use code changed after the addition was built. Beals replied that was his assumption. Boardmember Meyer asked whether the existing balcony is included in the overall square footage. Beals confirmed that it would be if it was enclosed on three sides. Shuff noted that the applicant excluded it from the site plan. Boardmember Lawton noted that this is a historic home and asked whether that comes into play. Beals said that his understanding is that there is no specific designation for this particular property, but it is part of a historic neighborhood and that he did consult with the Historic Preservation manager to confirm. Applicant Presentation: Applicants, Kristin Zuro, 2928 Gilpin St, Chris Gray, 890 Tortally Dr, and Patricia Quinn, 421 E Laurel St addressed the board and agreed to the remote proceedings. Applicant Zuro stated that the International Residential Code (IRC) defines unhabitable space as under 5 feet of height. They believe it should not count for allowable square footage. The balcony upstairs would not be blocked in as the addition is a one-story. Applicant Gray stated that there will be some additional patio space but would have little to no impact visually from any vantage point. Applicant Quinn stated that the attic space does not have any access and is not usable in any way. Boardmember Meyer asked about the plan for the roof over the addition. Applicant Gray stated that is still a work in progress. The hope is to maintain the character of the property. They did not put work into this as they were awaiting the outcome of this appeal. It will be lower than the existing house. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff thinks that the request is reasonable and noted the code discrepancy between the IRC and the land use code. He would have like to have seen some elevation drawings. Chair Shields thinks that there might be some limitations with what they can do with the roof if they are trying to maintain the balcony. Applicant Gray stated that the intent is not necessarily to keep the balcony. It most likely will go away. Boardmember Lawton wanted to have more details about the balcony. Gray noted that it would most likely be inaccessible space over the new roof. Shuff asked whether the removal of the balcony should be included in the motion. Beals noted that the request is specific to square footage. If they went over square footage, there would have to be additional approval from the Board. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve with condition ZBA210011 for the following reasons: Based on the findings of code section 2.10.4(H), The variance is not detrimental to the public good, the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area in the rear-half of the lot, the addition is one story in height and meets the required setback, the addition is blocked from view from the street and the alley by existing buildings and with the condition that no addition will be added to the second level. 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shields, McCoy and Shuff Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 April 8, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA210012 - DENIED Address: 818 Maple St. Owner: Aniana Maria Petitioner: Jim Swanson Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (D)(5); 4.8 (E)(6)(a) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building with habitable space. Two variances are needed 1) To exceed the maximum floor area of an accessory structure by 62.36 square feet when maximum allowable floor area is 600 square feet and 2) Exceed the maximum dormer width by 12.5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the proposal is to build an additional accessory building with habitable space on the lot. An existing shed would be demolished. The code has continued to be refined with additional standards. There is a new standard on the size of the dormer and its width. The width of the dormer proposed would exceed the maximum allowed. If the width height were brought down, there would be no need for additional floor area. The dormer is being requested on both sides of the building. The examples of similar structures in the neighborhood were most likely built before the code change. Occupancy limits would not be increased and there would not be any kitchen facilities. Boardmember Shuff wanted clarification on the area of habitable space above a garage. Beals noted that everything counts as area on first floor for accessory building. The overall height of the building is permissible. The dormers give additional overall height but also exceed the width. Boardmember Meyer asked about the eave height as it was noted in the application. Beals noted that it is not in play because it is set back appropriately. Boardmember Meyer asked about the change in the code regarding dormers and whether it was driven by citizen comment. Beals said it was in response to complaints. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jim Swanson, 432 Park St, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. He added context that he is a neighbor and friend of the applicant. Boardmember Meyer asked for clarification on the intent for use of the space. Applicant Swanson noted that the existing home is very small. There is basically only one functioning bedroom. The home was purchased for the charm and the homeowner does not want to change the character of the existing home but needs additional space for guests. He also noted other properties in the area with similar accessory buildings. Boardmember Lawton asked whether it was significant hardship to build with the dormers being in compliance. Applicant Swanson answered that there were building costs as well as the height space the dormers allow. There is also a utility pole off the middle of the property which limits placement. Lawton asked how much habitable space there would be if the building was built to code. Swanson estimated that it would be about half of the space. Boardmember Shuff asked about the location of the garage if the eave height and dormer height were of concern – why was the garage not more centered? The applicant stated that the utility pole and line is in the way and it causes a hardship. The lines only run to the house and can be re-routed but the pole cannot be moved. Chair Shields asked about the affects to the neighboring properties. The applicant stated that he is very much for maintaining the character of the neighborhood. He does not believe that this building would be out of place in the neighborhood. It is a good alternative to having large houses built in the area. Audience Participation: (none) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 April 8, 2021 Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff stated that prior to the code changes, the unsaid rule was that the dormer should not be the predominant feature of the roof. Should be half or less than the overall width. He does not see the hardship and believes there are other ways to design the space that can meet the code. Boardmember Meyer agreed with Shuff’s comments and can see one variance passing but not both. Given the material provided, he is not convinced that the client’s wants could not be met without remaining in code. He also noted that the site plan is not to scale. The applicant asked about the standards and whether they tier in any order. Does hardship weigh heavier than nominal and inconsequential? Beals stated the standards are hardship, equal to/better than and nominal/inconsequential. There is no tier. The Board would just need to agree with one. Boardmember Lawton thinks that there are other possibilities that would give even more usable space and still be within code. Chair Shields thinks there are ways to get more creative with the design. Chair Shields made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny ZBA210012 for the following reasons: The proposed dormer is 72% of the length of the wall below, the maximum allowed is 25%, the increased dormer length is for both sides of the building, insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard and insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shields, McCoy and Shuff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED • OTHER BUSINESS (none) • ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 10:11 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning