Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/12/2004• 0 Minutes approved by the Board at the September 9, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting —August 12, 2004 8:45 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11Chairperson: William Stockover IlPhone: (H) 223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday August 12, 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 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: William Stockover STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairperson Hall, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 8, 2004, meeting. Dickson seconded the motion. The motion passed with Remington abstaining. ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2466—Approved. Address: 1300 Coulter Street Petitioner: Scott Brink Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(c) Backeround: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 6 feet for the storage shed that was recently constructed. This request was originally heard by the Board on June 10, 2004 but was tabled to July 8, 2004 and continued to August 12, 2004 in order to allow the applicant time to submit additional plans illustrating how the impacts of the reduced setback might be mitigated. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Moving the shed to comply with the required setback would put it in the middle of the back yard. The proposed shed location is in keeping with the setbacks of other existing sheds in the neighborhood. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted the additional documentation that the Board requested at the June hearing on this matter. The material would seem to address the issues of concern to the Board. Staff Presentation A letter was read in support of the appeal from Jesse and Ruth Brungardt of 1307 Monterey Drive. Barnes stated that the appeal was first heard by the Board at the June meeting. The Board had considerable discussion regarding the merits of the request and tabled the appeal in order to allow the applicant to bring in additional information on how the existing shed was not detrimental to the other property owners. The Board wanted the Applicant to provide other ways to mitigate the closeness of the shed to the property line with items such as shrubs. The Applicant submitted a proposed landscaping plan that included four new shrubs between the building and the rear property line. The Applicant indicated that the lowering of the roof was not feasible. Barnes noted that the Applicant also submitted seven additional letters from neighboring properties that were in support of the appeal. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was a corner lot that faced Coulter Street. Barnes noted that the shed was constructed without a building permit. Applicant Participation: ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 3 • Scott Brink, 1300 Coulter Street, addressed the Board. Brink stated that he had another letter from a neighbor and gave the letter to Barnes. Hall asked Brink what he planned to do to lessen the visual impact. Brink proposed placing shrubbery on the east side of the property. Brink stated that placing the shed in the middle of the yard was not practical. Barnes read the letter from Victoria Bieliunas, an adjacent property owner, in support of the appeal. Board Discussion: McBride made a motion to approve the appeal based on the equal to or better than standard. McBride noted that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The proposal was equal to the code due to the context, design, and landscaping. The purpose of the standard was to promote light, ventilation, and air and, the placement of the shed met the purpose of the standard. McBride noted that the neighborhood was in favor of the appeal. Miscio seconded the motion. Hall agreed with the context argument. Remington stated that he was going to abstain due to his absence when the appeal was before the Board in June. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, McBride, Dickson, Donahue. • Abstain: Remington. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2473—Approved. Address: 224 Wood Street Petitioner: Jeff Pierce Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background The variance would reduce the required side setback along the south lot line from 5' to 0' in order to allow the existing roof of the detached garage to be removed and replaced with a new roof. Additionally, the height of the garage wall will be increased by about 8". The existing roof overhangs the property line, but the new roof will be flush with the property line. The existing garage wall is already at a 0' setback. The new roof and wall height result from the proposed construction project to connect the detached garage to the house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The lot is very narrow, only 35' wide. The existing roof is in disrepair, and a new roof is • proposed in order to tie it in with the proposed addition. The additional 8" of wall height is ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 4 desirable so that the garage wall height will match the height of the wall on the rest of the house. The new roof will result in closer compliance to the setback requirement than does the existing roof since the existing encroaches over the lot line. Staff Comments None. Staff Presentation Bames stated the property was in the Westside neighborhood in Old Town. The lot is narrow. The Applicant proposed to construct an addition on the backside of the house and connect it to the garage. The roof is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. The new roof on the garage will tie in the addition well and the height of the wall will need to be increased to accommodate the new roof. Bames stated that any new construction was required to comply with the required setbacks, even if the building was non -conforming. The structure was a non -conforming building because it was already at a zero setback and the eaves encroach over the lot line. Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. The existing garage is on the lot line with an eave overhang. According to the drawings submitted by the Applicant there will not be an eave overhang due to building code issues. The wall will be increased by 8 inches. Remington asked staff if a 35-foot wide lot was typical in the neighborhood. Barnes replied that there were some blocks that had some 35-foot wide lots, but generally the lots were 40-50 feet in width. Hall asked if an alley was behind the property. Barnes said yes, but it was not a normal 20-foot wide alley. Applicant Participation Jeff Pierce, 224 Wood Street, addressed the board. Pierce stated that almost every property in the neighborhood had buildings on the property lines. Pierce stated that he was eliminating the cave overhang and adding a one -hour fire wall. Board Discussion Bames noted that if the roof on the garage were not being replaced then a variance would not be required. Remington stated that the hardship standard could be used and approval would mean the elimination of the eave overhang. Remington was in favor of the appeal. Donahue stated the Applicant addressed his concern with fire -rating. Hall stated that his first choice would be to see the garage moved to the back of the lot to comply with code. Hall felt the addition was bulky. Pierce replied that on the northeast comer of the property the alley cut diagonal through his property. According to Pierce, placing the addition on the rear of the property would not be feasible. Remington asked staff if it was possible to know which easements were on the rear of the property. Barnes replied that in the old neighborhoods there are not any easements on the ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 5 • lots because of the alley, although the City may have later negotiated an easement. Barnes also noted that the alley was not of normal size with a right angle turn and, it was probable that traffic cuts the comer. Donahue asked staff if the addition met the lot area to floor area ratio requirement. Barnes stated that it would be in compliance. McBride asked if the addition did not connect to the garage would a variance be required. Barnes said that if the addition did not connect and the roof did not need to be replaced the garage could remain. Miscio asked Pierce how many additional square feet would be added. Pierce responded that the home currently has 621 square feet and he was adding 450 square feet. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2473 based on the hardship standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Remington noted that the property has unique physical characteristics including the narrow lot and the north alley configuration may impact the use of the rear of the property. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, McBride, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: Hall. 4. APPEAL NO. 2474—Approved. Address: 1427 West Mountain Avenue • Petitioner: Steve Josephs Zone:' NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Background The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 9 feet to 6 feet and reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 8 feet to 6 feet in order to allow a new 2-story house to be constructed in approximately the same location as the existing house that is proposed to be demolished. The setback requirement is based on the height of the walls along the lot lines. The 26' high wall on the west requires a 9' setback and the 24' high wall on the east requires an 8' setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The home is designed to be a zero energy house. In order to maximize the amount of roof area available for solar collector cells, a hip roof is not desirable. A large cottonwood tree on the neighboring property will reduce the efficiency of the solar energy system unless the amount of solar cells is increased to the maximum amount. 0 ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 6 Staff Comments One of the hardship "standards" that the Board can consider is "the existence of a physical condition that hinders the owner's ability to install a solar energy system". The Board can determine whether or not this standard for a variance is met. Staff Presentation A letter from Mike Vogel and Vicki Prittle of 1423 West Mountain Avenue was read in support of the appeal. Barnes said the standard in question was something the Board has heard from time to time. In the NCL, NCM, and NCB zoning districts there was a setback requirement where the height of the wall along a lot line increased over 18 feet in height, then the setback has to increase for each additional 2 feet of height, and one foot of additional setback was required. The whole wall does not have to be moved. According to Barnes, the west lot line based on the height of a 26-foot high wall along the lot line a 9-foot setback was required although, it does not mean that the whole wall has to be 9 feet. Bames stated the hardship was the solar collector cells. Barnes noted that the hardship standard included the conditions that hindered the owner's ability to install a solar energy system because the strict application of the standard would result in unusual and exceptional and practical difficulties. The solar energy component was put into the Code in the 1970s during the energy crisis. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Bames stated that the proposal was to demolish the existing house and construct a new house. The back of the lot included an existing garage and a proposed guest house. The proposed guest house would be less than 300 square feet and will have a bathroom, but not a kitchen. Bames said that because the owners will have water service in the guest house, under the code amendment that was placed in May, the owners have to go through a public hearing process on that building. The Applicants were starting that process as well. Barnes noted that there was a large cottonwood tree on the neighboring property that impacted how the home was constructed in order to take best advantage of the solar benefits. Dickson asked staff if there were any issues regarding tree removal. Barnes noted that the landscape standards that are in the Land Use Code do not apply to single family dwellings. There are no regulations for landscaping and preserving existing trees. Unless the tree was in the right of way, the Applicants did not need permission to remove the tree. Hall asked if staff knew how high the adjacent house was. Barnes estimated 18-20 feet. Steve Josephs, the petitioner, indicated that it was 25 feet to the peak. Applicant Participation Kim Jordan, 2780 Dean Drive, addressed the Board. Jordan was the prospective owner of the property at 1427 West Mountain Avenue. Jordan stated that she was surprised to be at the ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 7 • meeting. She thought she was within the square footage and height restrictions regulated by the Zoning Department. Jordan stated that she was trying to build a zero net energy home, meaning that the amount of energy used will be offset by harvesting energy in the summer and year around. Jordan intended to sell energy back to the City. Jordan felt it was important to be pioneers in pushing innovation forward in the community. Jordan stated that the house had to be situated in order for the bulk of the roof to face the south for solar collection. Jordan noted that the project was going to fit into the character of the neighborhood. Jordan coordinated a neighborhood meeting and her neighbor to the west was not at the meeting, although she was in support of the project. Most neighbors were concerned with construction schedules. Jordan explained each elevation of the house. The roof was a 7/12 pitch. The solar collector cells will not be visible due to decorative blocking. Jordan explained the tree situation and noted a sun study was completed and the tree prohibited full use of the solar panels. Jordan stated that the property will be highly landscaped. She noted that the existing fence was shared with a neighbor. McBride noted that it would look funny if an angle were cut off and stated that solar collectors would be lost. Jordan commented that her proposal was the most aesthetically pleasing and noted that the proposal was one -foot further in than the existing house. McBride inquired if there were any other issues. Barnes replied that the Applicant complied with everything else including the lot area to floor area ratio. • Remington asked if the cottonwood tree did not exist would the Applicant be able to use a hip roof and have enough solar collection. Jordan introduced her husband to answer Remington's question and he said no. Board Discussion McBride stated that the neighbors on either side did not object to the variance request and asked if that was a fair statement. Jordan said yes and explained that she had a neighborhood meeting. Jordan noted that the Historic Preservation Department was in favor of the new structure. Barnes stated that he conversed with the neighbor to the west (she was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting) and she appeared to be more concerned with the construction schedule also. Hall asked if there had been any previous requests regarding solar energy panels. Bames said not since the late 70s-early 80s, although there was a request for an addition. Miscio was in favor of the appeal and felt the hardship standard was appropriate. Hall agreed with Miscio. Dickson was also in favor of the appeal. The Board discussed using the hardship standard to approve the appeal. Barnes noted that part of the physical condition was the cottonwood tree on the other side because it dictated the placement of the house and the amount of necessary solar collector cells. Remington stated that he asked about the tree and the Applicant stated the structure would not work with a hip roof. Bames said only for a house this size. Barnes noted • that the Applicant indicated that if the width was decreased it would be made up in the depth, ZBA August 12, 2004 Page 8 which would impact the neighbors view out of the kitchen window. Bames commented that it was tough on the design of the proposed structure. McBride asked about what the Code stated about solar access. Barnes said that it pertained to a new development and it was the City's intent to use both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and business as long as natural topography, soil, or other subservice conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. Bames read from the Code, "the use of solar energy is optional but right to solar access is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year ...the goal of this section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties." Remington was concerned with setting a precedent if the hardship was not clear. The Board discussed the hardship. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2474 based on the hardship standard. Miscio stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Miscio remarked that the property had exceptional physical conditions and other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property including the following: (1) the lot required that the property be designed in a unique manner; (2) cottonwood tree; and (3) the design satisfied the intent of the code regarding solar houses. Miscio stated that any other options would create a hardship for the Applicant. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, McBride, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: Remington. 5. Other Business The Board discussed the nominal and inconsequential standard. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. Dwight Hall, Vice -Chairperson Peter Barnes, Barnes, Zoning Administrator