Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/13/2001Minutes approved by the Board at the January 10, 2002 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — December 13, 2001 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: William Stockover Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Phone: 482-4895 (I -I) A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday December 13, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Sandra Kendrick, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Remington to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2001 meeting. Board Member Pawlikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed with Board Members Ayraud and Breth abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO. 2362 - Approved with conditions. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 2 Address: 651 Whedbee St Petitioner: Stephen Mack Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5000 square feet to 4295 square feet in order to allow the one existing lot that contains the homes at 420 E. Laurel and 651 Whedbee to be split into two separate lots. The new lot containing 420 E. Laurel will have 5455 square feet, but the 651 Whedbee lot will only have 4295 square feet as a result of the lot split. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The petitioner desires to construct an addition and do exterior remodeling to the home at 420 E. Laurel Street. Finance companies will not lend money unless each of the two homes is on its own lot. See attached letter from Wells Fargo Bank. Staff Comments Peter Barnes read a petition signed by 20 homeowners of 20 properties within the required notification list in support of this appeal. Barnes noted that there will be two separate presentations, Appeal 2362 and Appeal 2363. The reason for the variance at 651 Whedbee is to reduce the lot area in order to remodel the home at 420 E. Laurel, Appeal 2363. Lending institutions have concerns about non -conforming situations. This is a non -conforming property in that there are two homes on a lot less than 10,000 square feet. The construction of the home at 420 E. Laurel led to the City Council adopting an emergency ordinance in the 1990s to put a halt to the construction of alley homes or homes on the rear of properties. This lot does back up to an alley. There was considerable concern regarding the construction of this home from people living in the neighborhood regarding the size and design of the building. There was also adoption of new code requirements for second homes on lots in three zones in the old town areas. Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Board Member Remington asked if the house conforms to the setback requirements. Barnes stated it did. The new lot line as proposed would be 17 feet west of the rear of the building. It would be the rear lot line of the Whedbee St. home and a 15 foot setback is required. Board Member Ayraud asked if the larger lot needed the extra square footage in order to meet setback regulations or could it be smaller and add the footage to the smaller lot. Barnes said the new lot line that would be created would have to be 5 feet away from the home on Laurel St. The lot could be made bigger by moving the lot line 5 feet to the west and that would add another 250 square feet of lot area to the Whedbee St. lot. He suggested the applicant could explain why he was requesting those lot sizes. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 3 Board Member Pawlikowski asked if the original lot size was ever modified because of street widening or sidewalks. Barnes stated the lot that these buildings are sitting on now are the original lot configuration. Board Member Breth asked if it would be possible to give a variance to allow two houses on an under 10,000 square foot lot making it conform. Barnes answered that the two houses on the lot are already legal as far as the City is concemed, but he did not know how lending agencies would view the situation. Applicant Participation: Stephen Mack, 420 E. Laurel Street, addressed the Board. He is planning an extensive remodel of 420 E. Laurel which he is declaring as his residence. Several lending agencies have told him in order to get owner -occupied financing, each home must be on separate lots. One home will be financed as rental property and the other as owner -occupied. The property as it is now is con - conforming regarding finance companies loan policies. To answer the question of the new rear setback of 17 feet, the applicant said he could crowd the Laurel St. lot and add an additional 250 square feet to the smaller Whedbee lot. However, there is a natural split in the back patio and if kept at 17 feet from Whedbee house there is a fairly substantial walled patio to the Laurel Street house. If it is pushed the other way to the minimum side setback for the other lot, there would only be a 5 foot wide patio. Remington asked if the banks would lend on the property now, but they will not give an owner occupied rate. The applicant said yes and the difference is quite substantial. Remington asked if there are any plans to remodel the house on Whedbee. The applicant said there are not any plans. Curt Arneson, 644 Peterson St., spoke in support of the appeal. His home is directly west of the 651 Whedbee. When the house at 420 East Laurel Street was first built many years ago, the neighbors were concerned about the design of the house. It did not fit with the neighborhood. The plans for the remodel of the house are much more conforming to the neighborhood and all the neighbors he has spoken to are in support of this appeal. It will blend into the neighborhood and increase property values. Board Discussion: Ayraud asked if Historic Preservation needs to approve this remodel. Baines said any time someone proposes an exterior remodel to a home that is more than 50 years old, the Historic Preservation Office does need to sign off on the permit. In this case, there is no proposal for the remodeling to the front home, the only remodel that is proposed is to the Laurel St. house. This house is not 50 years old, so does not need to go to Historic Preservation. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 4 Ayraud stated that hardship is not an option in this case because everything they have heard is economic and the Board is not allowed to consider that, so it should be based on "equal to or better than" standard. Remington agreed that there is no hardship and has some mixed feelings. He thinks as it is stated in staff comments the purpose of the "equal to or better than standard" is to allow a certain amount of open space and a certain density in a neighborhood and what is being proposed is not going to change that. On the one hand, a case could be made that what is being proposed is equal to the standard, not necessarily that it is better than. The petition that was mentioned was that the people were in favor of the remodel. He thought a condition should be placed on this appeal that the remodel will take place. His concern was that the lots would be split, no remodeling done and then the lots would be sold separately. Barnes clarified the petition issue by reading the title of the petition which is "Request for variance for 651 Whedbee and for 420 E. Laurel". It is for both properties and they are in support of the request that the Board of Appeals grant the variances required to remodel 420 E. Laurel. So they understand that in order to remodel 420 E. Laurel, it includes the variance for 615 Whedbee to split the lot. Remington felt that the variance is not required to remodel the property. The owner can get the loan, but at a higher interest rate. If the variance is granted, it makes it easier and more economical which is not a hardship. He is not opposed to improving the property like the neighbors want, but his concerns were that there is a non -conforming issue. The next variance the Board may hear if this is approved is to allow something non -conforming added to the lot that was just created at 615 Whedbee Street. Ayraud had the same concerns. He thought what the Board was being asked to do is creating other difficulties and that what the Board is about to do is to split a lot and the second appeal is going to be for a variance because of the variance that was just granted. If it is not granted, the applicant could build a garage, because he does not need a variance to build it. The applicant can do the work that is needed. The second one does not concern him because the applicant can build it right now up to 5 feet from the lot line. He questioned Barnes if the square footage to lot ratio would be in compliance. Barnes explained that the additional piece of achieving required open space is the requirement that in this particular zoning district the lot area has to be at least twice as large as the floor area of all the buildings on the property. In this particular case, the current situation allows an expansion because they are not at the 2 to 1 ratio. With the lot split, both situations would still be in compliance and actually have some latitude. The one that the Board is considering now with the lot split with 4295 square feet, 2150 square feet of floor area would be allowed. Currently there is 916 square feet on that property, so they could double the size of the home and still meet the 2 to 1 lot area ratio. On the rear home, the second appeal, with 5455 square feet, 2725 square feet would be allowed. With the current floor area and the proposed addition they would be at 2215 so they would be at about 500 square feet less. That portion of the code that helps to ensure open space would still be in compliance and actually have some extra lot area to spare. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 5 Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal 2362 based on the fact that it is "equal to or better than". One being there is no detriment to the community as it is already existing. The Board will not allow more or new buildings on these lands. The code would prevent that so there is no detriment as it pre-existing and it is equal to since it is already a legal non -conforming property. There will not be new homes, the variance would simply draw a line on a piece of paper allowing those two homes to exist on different legal lots but nothing that would deviate from its current condition so that makes it "equal to or better than". Miscio seconded the motion. Remington asked if there should be some requirements that the remodel be done. Ayraud asked that if any remodel were done, would it be approved by the Laurel Street Historic Preservation Society even if it does not meet the 50 year requirement. Stockover asked Barnes if the Board would be allowed to do that. Barnes stated he was not sure. If the Landmark Preservation Commission does not have jurisdiction over it, he does not think the Board can refer it to them and say they have to approve it. If they do have jurisdiction, it is already a requirement that they have to approve the remodel. Breth stated he thinks the Board needed something to protect them for the Whedbee Street lot. There is a need for a restriction saying the proposed remodel has to be done on the Laurel St. property. Then it will be tracked when a permit is applied for. If the Board decides to not approve Appeal 2363, then will the first appeal go back to a single lot. Barnes said it will not. The Applicant added the primary reason for the variance is to allow him to refinance, so if there is a condition to limit his ability to split prior to financing, he will not be able to get the financing he is seeking. The Applicant stated the remodel of the home is very substantial and will be much more consistent with surrounding homes and will have a Victorian look. Kurt Arneson stated again this home has never conformed to the neighborhood and with the remodel it will blend with the other homes. Remington agreed this is what the neighbors want, but he has some concerns that if the Board grants the variance as it is, the lot will be split and create an economic advantage but there is nothing that will ensure anything will change. Barnes suggested that the Board could put a condition that the proposed remodeling and improvements actually occur on 420 E. Laurel because that is the hardship or the reason that the Applicant is requesting the variance on 651 Whedbee. There is a corrolation between the two, so a condition would be appropriate. Ayraud added to the motion that it would be on the condition that the proposed remodel that has been submitted must occur as outlined in the plans submitted. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 6 Barnes asked if there should be a time limit. Stockover asked the Applicant if one year would be sufficient and the Applicant said that would be more than adequate. Ayraud added a time limit of one year from the date the variance is granted to the motion. Barnes stated that since the maker of the motion proposed the amendment it does not need a separate motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Ayraud, Miscio, Breth Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2363 — Approved Address: 420 E. Laurel St Petitioner: Stephen Mack Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(3) Back round: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the north lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow a 12-foot garage extension to be constructed on the west side of the existing garage. The new north wall of the addition will line up with the existing north wall of the home. Because of the lot split explained in Appeal 2362, the north lot line of this newly created lot will become the legal rear lot line. Prior to the lot split, the north lot line is considered a side lot line, wherein only a 5-foot setback is required. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The building is already located only 5 feet from the north lot line. This is the only place to construct the garage extension. The lot split explained in Appeal 2362 causes the north lot line to be reclassified from a side lot line to a rear lot line. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: Stephen Mack, 420 E Laurel St, explained to the Board that the reason for the request to extend the garage is for space to put cars in. He collects antique cars and has no room for his personal cars. This will add additional architectural detail with an offsetting roof that will balance the roof lines that are being proposed on the remodel of the front of the home. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 7 In Support of the Appeal Kurt Arneson, 644 Peterson St., said that by allowing the extension of the garage it could have a gabled end. It would have a victorian flair to the home with windows that are fitting to other neighborhood homes. It would enhance the general looks of the neighborhood. Board Discussion Ayraud wondered if a hardship was created because of the Board's approval of the previous appeal. Breth agreed that the applicant does have a hardship because of the small lot which the Board created. Barnes stated that the lot is larger than the minimum lot size required in that zone. Barnes said by granting the first appeal the north lot line of 420 E Laurel has been reclassified from a side lot line to a rear lot line. Breth made a motion that Appeal 2363 be approved because of the hardship created with the approval of Appeal 2362. Ayraud seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Ayraud, Miscio, Breth Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2364 -Approved Address: 231 S Grant St Petitioner: George Gaebler & Laura Olive-Gaebler Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) & 4.6(F)(1)(g) Back round The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Olive Street from 15 feet to 4.5 feet in order to allow a one-story family room addition to be constructed. The variance would also allow the roof of the addition to be flat rather than having a 2:12 minimum roof pitch. The Olive Street setback of the exsiting home is already nonconforming with a setback of eight feet. The Board granted this same variance on December 14, 2000, but the variance has expired without the petitioner having obtained a building permit. Therefore, the Board must rehear the appeal in order to renew it. . Petitioner's Statement of Hardship ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 8 Please see attached petitioner's letter. Staff Comments Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to the appeal. Ayraud asked what the hardship was that was used when this variance was granted. Barnes said the hardship was based on topography which was mature trees and the existing footprint of the house which took into account the difference in floor levels. The location on the lot and the apple trees limited where an addition could be constructed. The flat roof would not have any detrimental impact. Remington asked what caused the variance to expire. Barnes answered that the code requires that a variance for which a permit is required is valid for a period of six months. If the permit is not obtained in that time period, the applicant needs to come before the Board and submit a new appeal. Applicant Participation: Laura Olive-Gaebler, 231 S. Grant, addressed the Board. She explained the plan she has for the addition and how it will maintain the historical integrity of the home and the neighborhood. Ayraud asked the Applicant when the building would begin. The Applicant has chosen a builder and will begin building in the next six months. She was not aware that the variance would expire. Board Discussion After discussion that there has been no changes since the variance was approved the first time, Remington made a motion that Appeal 2364 be approved with the findings and hardship as outlined in the minutes of December 14, 2000, ZBA meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Ayraud, Miscio, Breth Nay: None Other Business: Barnes presented slides pertaining to the variance that was presented to the Board in November, 2001 to allow temporary vendor operations at the Plainsman Motel property. The Board granted the six month variance to allow Christmas tree sales and bedding plant vending operations in the Spring. The slides showed the vendor setup with Christmas trees which takes attention away from the blighted building. A discussion was held regarding redeveloping the site. Because of FEMA regulations and floodplain issues, the Stormwater Utility Department would not approve development without raising the site 18 inches. ZBA December 13, 2001 Page 9 Barnes, on behalf of the City, expressed appreciation to David Ayraud and Thad Pawlikowski for donating their hours of volunteer service to the community by serving on the ZBA. Two new members will begin at the January 10, 2002 ZBA meeting. Barnes will be sending a separate letter with a schedule of the meetings in 2002 to the members of the ZBA Board. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. ( . C )LL-' William Stockover, Chairperson �-a- Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator