Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/11/2004• 1 Minutes approved by the Board at the April 8, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — March 11, 2004 8:45 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Steve Remington Phone: (H) 223-7135 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday March 11, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Steve Remington • William Stockover None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Stacie Soriano, 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: Hall made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 12, 2004, meeting. Donahue seconded the motion. The motion passed with McBride abstaining. 0 ZBA March 11, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2453—Approved. Address: 1130 West Oak Street Petitioner: Nancy Devine Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the lot area to floor area ratio requirement from the existing 1.8 to 1 down to 1.67 to 1 in order to allow a 310 square foot, second floor addition to be constructed. (The zone actually requires a lot area/floor area ratio of 3 to 1, but since this existing building pre -dated the code change that required a 3 to 1 ratio, it is considered nonconforming at its existing 1.8 to 1 ratio). The new second floor addition is planned to be constructed on top of the existing one-story portion of the house that connects the house to the pool building. Therefore the building footprint size will not be increased with this proposed addition, nor will the height be increased. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The living portion of the building contains three bedrooms and one full bathroom. The proposed addition will enlarge one of the existing bedrooms and add a full bathroom to the enlarged bedroom. The existing roof of the one-story portion of the building is in bad repair and needs to be replaced. Constructing the addition on top of this area will fix that problem and add the additional bathroom. The most logical way to expand the home is by adding a second floor on top of the existing one-story portion of the home. This does not change1he character of the home. Staff Comments: The addition is small and well designed so as to maintain the character of the existing building. The Board has previously granted some similar variances for old town properties, especially with regards to corner lots wherein the Board has determined that the extra right-of-way width abutting the property gives the appearance of a larger lot. Staff Presentation The property was an older property in the old part of town. Years ago the code was revised and the area was rezoned. Under the new code, the NCL zone required a 3 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio. Barnes noted that it was not uncommon in this neighborhood to find properties that are noncompliant with the regulation. Barnes stated that the house was currently non -conforming at a 1.8 to 1 floor area to lot -area ratio.- Barnes referredboardmembers to the-site_plais includedin-_ - their packets and pointed out the location of the second floor addition. The building footprint ZBA March 11, 2004 Page 3 • will not be increased. The proposal would put the property into further non-compliance regarding the lot area to floor area ratio. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was a two-story building with a one-story pool building. The second floor will be constructed in the area where the one-story and two-story portions are connected. Barnes referred board members to the architectural elevations. Applicant Participation Nancy Devine, 1130 West Oak Street, addressed the Board. Devine stated that the roof was leaking. Devine noted that there are four bedrooms in the house and one of them was a walk- thru. Devine would like to make the walk -thin bedroom more private. Devine's older children live with her and she would like to have rooms available for her children and company. Devine stated that aesthetically the house will be improved by adding the second floor. Remington asked if the house had been added onto previously. Devine said yes. The pool was an addition. The section that connects the original home to the pool room was an addition as well. The additions were completed in the early 80s. Board Discussion • Remington asked staff if the additions were completed prior to the code change. Barnes said yes. A previous variance was not granted for the property. Stockover did not have a problem with the request. Stockover asked other board members regarding which standard the Board should consider. Dickson agreed that the aesthetics of the home would be improved. Dickson noted that she did not see the request as a hardship, and felt the equal to or better than standard should be used. Donahue asked how the request could be considered equal to or better than if mass was being added. Donahue agreed that the aesthetics would be improved. Miscio said that the structures are disjointed and the proposal would improve the appearance of the property by having continuity. Miscio also noted that the interior was not functional. Miscio agreed with the equal to or better than standard. Remington agreed with the aesthetic improvement. Hall said approval would have to be framed around the comer lot issue. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2453. Dickson stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard was the lot area to floor area ratio of giving enough space around the home to be aesthetically pleasing. Dickson said the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance was requested equally well or better than a proposal which complied with the standard. Dickson said the reason the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard was because the lot was a corner lot which allowed for the perception of space around the building. _ The aesthetics of the home will be improved by connecting the architecture in a pleasing mam7er. • ZBA March 11, 2004 Page 4 Miscio seconded the motion. Remington wanted Dickson to amend her motion to note that the property was already nonconforming. Dickson agreed. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Miscio, Stockover, Hall, McBride, and Dickson. Nays: Donahue. 3. APPEAL NO. 2454—Approved with conditions. Address: 1006 Somerly Lane Petitioner: Scott Buhler Zone: RL Section: 3.5.2(D)(5) Background The variance would increase the allowed square footage for a detached accessory structure from 800 square feet to 1200 square feet in order to allow the construction of a 1200 square foot accessory building. Petitioner's Statement Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. Staff Comments The intent of restricting the size of accessory buildings to 800 square feet was to ensure that, in urban -type residential zones, the building was of an appropriate size for the typical size lots within Fort Collins. The larger than one acre lot in question is much larger than the average size residential lot, so the proposed 1200 square foot building is inconsequential when considered in relation to the size of the lot. The Board may determine that the proposal promotes the purpose of the standard equally well as would a proposal that complies with the standard since the size of the building relative to the size of the lot is equal to an 800 square foot building on an average size residential lot. Staff Presentation Barnes stated that the variance request was similar to a request that the Board heard on November 13, 2003 in the same neighborhood. The request was to allow a 1200 square foot detached accessory building when the code limited the size to 800 square feet. Barnes reviewed his comments that he made at the November 13, 2003 meeting. The code was revised last year to put a limit on the size of detached accessory buildings. Prior to the code revision there was not a set limit. Staff noticed that on typical urban sized _lot (7000-8000 square feet) individuals_ requested permits to construct permanent detached accessory buildings that were 1000-1500 square feet. The code did not address how big an accessory building could be and stated it ZBA March 11, 2004 Page 5 • should be subordinate. Staff reviewed the requests on a case by case basis, and often times building permits were denied. The code was amended to put in the 800 square foot limit. Staff recognized there would be instances where lot sizes in residential zones were much larger than the average lot, and that meant that the Zoning Board of Appeals would review larger than typical lots on a case by case basis. The purpose and intent of the code revision was to maintain an appropriate size of accessory buildings on typical size lots. The variance request last November was granted by the Board. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was in Provincetown. The property abuts Lemay Avenue to the east, and Somerly Lane was to the south. The Applicant proposed two possible locations for the building. There are other properties in the subdivision that have detached garages. Applicant Participation Scott Buhler addressed the Board. Buhler added that he received a phone call from his HOA, and the peak of the proposed building cannot exceed 22 feet. Stockover asked Buhler if he was the current owner of the property. Buhler stated that he was not the current owner of the property. Buhler had a contract contingent upon approval of the variance request. Buhler will be the future owner of the property if the request was approved. • Hall asked Buhler what the outbuilding would be used for. Buhler stated the building would be used to store recreational vehicles. Remington asked Buhler if he knew the approximate square footage of the house. Buhler replied approximately 2500 square feet. Remington asked Buhler how many other properties had detached accessory buildings. Buhler said four. Buhler said the covenants are strict. The proposed building has to be framed constriction with brick to match the house. The accessory building will be aesthetically pleasing. Hall asked Buhler if the HOA allowed other accessory buildings. Buhler noted that accessory buildings are limited to one. Remington asked Buhler if he would be in favor of the condition that the property could not be subdivided. Buhler did not have any objections to that condition. In support of the appeal Ron Delia, 907 Battsford Circle, addressed the Board. Delia was on the Board of Directors at Eagle Tree. Delia said that the covenants allow a 1200 square foot accessory building. Delia wanted clarification on the 800 square foot limitation for accessory buildings. Eckman explained that there was a difference between covenants and City code. The covenants may permit something that the City code prohibits and vice versa. Homeowners have to comply with City code, but the City does not enforce covenants. Delia asked about Section 29-526 in the City code and wanted to know if that was an agreement between the City and the HOA. Barnes said the Code section no longer exists since the Code was amended in 1997. Eckman stated that Section 29-526 made a cross reference to how the City approved planned unit developments in the past. Eckman stated that Land Use Code is currently used to approve subdivisions. 0 Opposed to the appeal ZBA March 11, 2004 Page 6 Robert Prussman, 6813 Deerhurst Court, addressed the Board. Prussman submitted photographs to the Board members. The photographs represented the difference between an 800 square foot and a 1200 square foot building. Prussman requested that the Board deny any request to increase accessory buildings. Pressman stated that homeowners were relying on previous variances that have been granted. Prussman was concerned that every homeowner will be seeking a variance for a 1200 square foot building, and the area will have a commercial rather than residential appearance. Prussman felt Buhler's request would have a greater impact than those variances previously requested due to the Buhler property being in a cul-de-sac. Prussman noted that he did not receive his legal notice until Monday March 8, 2004, and felt other neighbors did not have time to consider the impacts of the request. Remington asked Prussman if he was concerned about the mass and bulk of the accessory buildings. Prussman said yes and referred to the pictures. Remington wanted to know Prussman's suggestion for equipment storage. Prussman stated that he did not have one. Prussman was concerned with the vision of storage. Board Discussion Barnes clarified that the Board heard two or three other requests in other parts of town where people have requested buildings over 800 square feet on large lots. Barnes said the hearing in November 2003 for 1006 Province was the only one considered by the Board for this particular subdivision. Eckman asked the Applicant, Mr. Delia, or Mr. Prussman if they knew whether the covenants permitted the parking of boats and RVs on the lots without shelter. Buhler stated the covenants did not allow for outside storage. Miscio asked Buhler why he believed an 800 square foot building was not large enough. Buhler responded that the size was compromised enough that it was not worth his time and effort. Miscio asked staff if the Applicant would be able to have more than one 800 square foot building on the property. Barnes stated that from a City code requirement, the code restricts the maximum size of any one detached accessory building to 800 square feet. There was nothing in the code that stated that a property could not have more than one 800 square foot building, as long as setbacks are met. The covenants restricted accessory buildings to one. Stockover stated that the HOA Board would have to detennine where the accessory building would be placed. Stockover felt the neighborhood was designed to have 1200 square foot accessory buildings, especially since they were allowed by the covenants. Remington asked staff if the subdivision was annexed into the City. Barnes replied no. The subdivision was in the city limits when it was approved. Remington asked if the code was changed after the subdivision was built. Barnes said yes. The code was changed last year. Donahue asked Buhler about the two different schemes regarding -size of the accessory building. Buhler replied that both options are 1200 square feet. The "XY" dimensions are different to accommodate the property. Buhler said he decided on the southeast location. • 4. 11 ZBA March 11, 2004 Page 7 The Board discussed which standard would be used to address the appeal. Donahue was in favor of placing a condition on the approval that the lot could not be split. The Board discussed which proposal out of the two submitted would be more favorable. Access and the placement of the garage doors were discussed. Stockover asked Delia if Buhler's proposal circulated through the HOA. Delia replied no and only three board members reviewed it. The HOA was agreeable to Buhler's proposal. Remington asked Eckman if there was an issue approving a variance request if the Applicant did not own the home. Eckman said the current homeowner was not obliged to build an accessory building, if the closing did not occur. Eckman stated Remington might want to inquire of the Applicant that he was acting with the authority of the homeowner. Stockover stated the Board could condition the approval for Mr. Buhler. McBride asked staff if the square footage was attached to the house would the zoning regulations have jurisdiction. Barnes replied yes. If the proposal was not detached it would be considered part of the main structure. The attachment would have to be enclosed. McBride was in favor of the appeal. Barnes stated that the intent of the code was to ensure that a balance was maintained between the mass of buildings on a lot in proportion to the lot size. Remington felt that the hardship did not apply. Stockover agreed. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2454. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard was to maintain an appropriate ratio of land to building size. The general purpose was met due to the lot size being approximately one acre and a ratio was maintained. Miscio conditioned the appeal to include the following: (1) no additional buildings be built on the property; (2) lot should not be subdivided; and (3) the variance was approved upon the closing of the property for Mr. Buhler only. Hall wanted Miscio to also add the 22 feet height requirement.. Miscio agreed. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Miscio, Donahue, Stockover, Hall, McBride, and Dickson. Nays: None. There was no other business Meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. -J� - William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator jriDC- Sr,,N.zsly Lam.. Scott Buhler 1006 Somerly Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 February 26, 2004 Zoning Board of Appeals Council Chambers City Hall West 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Committee, Pm submitting this application for a variance based on the recent Land Use Code changes for a residence that I currently have a contract to purchase at 1006 Somerly Lane, Fort Collins CO, 80525. 1 have included plans for two different lot layouts. I have not yet determined which one is the best fit for the property (because of the time crunch I have not been able to get all the information needed for utility hook ups, etc.).1 am requesting a variance be granted for either location. I was informed that the code for this neighborhood (zoned RL) was recently changed which would prevent me from building a garage addition according to the plans I currently have. A one-third reduction in the allowable square footage was incorporated into Article 3 General Development Standards, code 3.5.2D5; only allowing an 800 sq ft. detached accessory building to be constructed. My plans call for a 1200 sq ft. accessory building. 1 would like to submit the follow facts and arguments in securing a variance for this building plan. 1. Plans approved by Eagle Tree at Provincetown HOA The proposed plans were submitted and subsequently approved by the Eagle Tree Board of Directors and the Architectural Control Committee for the neighborhood Home Owners Association. (Signed/Approved plans available upon request) 2. Consistent with Other Residence Outbuildings Some residences in this sub division currently have existing detached garages that are 1200 sq ft. in size. These buildings were approved by the BOA and the City of Fort Collins prior to construction based on the previous Land Use Codes. Please refer to Exhibit A (Existing Province Road Properties with 1200 Sq Ft Outbuildings) for digital pictures. 3. Plan Satisfies Intent of Code The code states that the standards are "intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian -oriented streets in residential development'. In no way does this proposal infringe on those goals. I would presume that the average residential lot size in the city of Fort Collins is about 10,000 sq ft in size and thus these codes were adopted -- with that in mind (maximum 800 sq ft accessory building). My property is over one • acre in size (45,475 Sq Ft) and thus a detached garage of the proposed size on a lot larger than one acre satisfies the intent of the code. If I calculate a ratio of garage square footage to lot size, the current code would allow about 8 sq fr per 100 sq feet of property. In comparison, based on my plans the ratio would be less than 2 sq feet of garage per 100 sq feet of property, 75% less than the current code maximum. Please see Exhibit B (Subject Property — 1006 Somerly Lane) 4. Plan Not a Detriment to Neighborhood or Aesthetics Because of the very strict covenants, conditions and restrictions currently enforced by the neighborhood homeowners association, this building must meet very strict requirements for appearance and location, such as being constructed of like materials and workmanship as the dwelling. 5. Designated Building Usage Because of the strict homeowner association covenants in place designed to insure the same goals as the Residential Building Standards, homeowners are restricted from storing any non -licensed vehicles or equipment on their property in the open. I intend to use this outbuilding as storage for my recreational vehicle, other recreational equipment; ATVs, motorcycles, boat, as well as additional storage for motor vehicles for a growing family. Additionally, a one acre lot size requires lawn and garden maintenance equipment different than that of a 8000 sq foot lot - riding mower, aerator, dump trailers, etc. 1 also intend to create a workshop area for personal use to • engage in various projects and hobby activities. 6. Buildings Recently Granted A Variance There was recently a variance granted for a neighboring house. Tom Washburn 1006 Province Road, had requested a variance be granted for a 1200 square foot accessory building in November 2003. It was approved at the November 13, 2003 Zoning Board Meeting. I have included a partial set of the meeting minutes pertaining to his approval. It was appeal number 2450. Based on these preceding facts and arguments, I am requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant me a variance to construct this accessory building. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Scott Buhler Exhibit A — Existing Eagle Tree Subdivision Properties with 1200 Sq Ft Outbuildings Exhibit B - Subject Property — 1006 Somerly Lane Exhibit C — Names and addresses of property owners within 150 ft of bldg site 0