Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/13/1998r] 171 Council Liaison: Ann Azari Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Diane Shannon j Phone: 223-6973 " A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 13, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth, Robert Gustafson, Dan Keating, Kathryn Krause, Diane Shannon and William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Eva Lieser, excused. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the July 9, 1998 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2230 —Approved: Address: 2000 Clearview Avenue Petitioner: Sidney Clark, Owner Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(c) Backaround: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the West lot line from 15' to 7' to allow the construction of a 13' x 24'6" single bay garage addition. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The current garage is for a single car only. The owner would like an additional garage for vehicle parking. The house faces the legal side yard (this is a comer lot). Therefore, his side yard is really the rear yard, leaving no room for an addition at the current setback requirement. 5' setbacks are required for side yards per RL code. This particular lot does have a 6' utility easement which will not be affected. Staff Comments: Peter Barnes presented slides relative to this variance request. He mentioned that this is a typical comer lot situation where the legal front property line is the one with the shortest street frontage, regardless of how the home is situated on the lot. This home currently has only a single car garage. The proposal is to modify the existing garage by adding a 13' x 24'6" single bay garage. Board Ouestions: Board Member Gustafson asked if the typical 5' side lot line setback applied in this case. Barnes confirmed that the 5' side lot line setback did apply. Chairperson Shannon asked if there were any objections from neighbors. Barnes mentioned that one of the neighbors was going to object, but later called and stated that they had no objection. Applicant Participation: Applicant Sidney Clark addressed the Board. He mentioned that he has wanted to build a one -gar garage onto the side of his home for several years. He was not aware that a variance would be required since the front of his house faces Clearview. He assumed that Clearview, which is his legal address, was the front, and was not aware that on comer lots, the short side of the lot constitutes the legal front. That is the reason he is requesting the variance. Applicant's home was built in 1960, at a time when an inordinate amount of homes were built with one -gar garages. Applicant would like to be able to park both of his vehicles inside a garage and needs to construct the proposed addition of the single bay garage in order to accomplish this. Board Member Keating asked if the design of the addition would match the present home. Applicant mentioned that it would be exactly the same, except that he would be installing one double garage door instead of having two single garage doors. Public Participation: None. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 3 Board Discussion: Board Member Breth stated that this situation falls under the guidelines of unusual comer lot situations due to the way the house is situated on the lot. He made a motion to approve Appeal 2230 based on the hardships stated. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Keating, Krause, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None Appeal 2230 was approved. 4. APPEAL 2231— Approved: Address: 3032 W. Lake Street Petitioner: Steven Petersen and Terri Burbridge, Owners Zone: RL Section: 3.8.11(3)(b) Back rg ound: The variance would allow a fence taller than 4' to be located in the front yard. Specifically, the variance would allow a 6' tall privacy fence to be located along the Overland Trail property line and along the north lot line. (This is a corner lot, where the legal "front yard" is the area between the west wall of the home and Overland Trail. The "actual" front yard along Lake Street will not be fenced with anything taller than 4'). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a corner lot wherein the home faces the legal street side yard. The legal "front yard" functions as a side yard, and 6' high fences are normally allowed in a side yard. The owner would like to be able to fence the side and rear in the same manner as other people. Additionally, the 6' fence along Overland Trail will help buffer vehicle noise. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides related to this appeal. This property is located at the corner of Overland Trail and West Lake Street. The house faces Lake Street. Overland Trail is the shortest of the two street frontages and is, therefore, considered the legal front property line. In this case, the fence ordinance limits the height of a fence that could be constructed in the area from the west wall of the home to Overland Trail, to 4'. This proposal is to construct a 6' high fence along Overland Trail, as well as the Applicant's north and east property lines. The actual "side" yard along Lake Street would not be fenced with anything taller than 4'. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 4 The property to the west of Applicant's home, and across Overland Trail, is The Ponds, which is being developed by U.S. Homes. Their development plan does not show a 6' high fence along Overland Trail. Many subdivisions do have 6' privacy fences along arterial streets. Most of the houses at The Ponds are going to be set back quite a ways from Overland Trail, and there are currently no plans for construction of a 6' privacy fence. Looking down Overland Trail, there are, however, a number of 6' privacy fences. The new code that was adopted last year includes design regulations for fences along arterial roads. Any section of fence that is over 75' in length must include decorative architectural elements, i.e., brick or stone columns, must have articulation, and must be softened with landscaping. In this case, the Applicant's fence section along Overland Trail would only be approximately 33' in length. Board Ouestions: Chairperson Shannon asked if the fence would be okay if the house were facing Overland Trail. Barnes mentioned that if the Applicant planned to construct the fence in the same location as what is currently proposed for sound buffering, etc., the same issues would exist. Board Member Keating asked about what was existing on the other side of Applicant's north property line. Barnes answered that there is a ditch to the north. Board Member Gustafson asked about input from the City Traffic Engineer on visibility if a 6' fence is constructed along Overland Trail. Barnes mentioned that the City has site distance requirements and has also acquired 20' of additional right-of-way along this area. The Applicant's proposal places the fence in a location where sight obstruction should not occur, even after any street improvements have been made. Applicant Participation: Applicant Steven Petersen addressed the Board. He mentioned that when The Ponds worked on Overland Trail last year, they constructed a new curb line. Assuming that this curb line would follow-through, the Applicant's fence would be at least 20 feet back from that curb. Applicant also mentioned that there are numerous fences to the south and to the north, along Overland Trail, that are 6' in height, so his proposed fence would not be inconsistent with what already exists. Chairperson Shannon asked the Applicant about the kind of fence he anticipated installing. Applicant answered that the would be installing a standard 6' cedar fence. Public Participation: None. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 5 Board Discussion: Board Member Breth mentioned that due to the fact that this is an irregularly shaped comer lot, and the fact that 33' is a very short distance for the proposed 6' fence along Overland Trail, he would be in favor of a motion approving this variance. Board Member Gustafson agreed that the Applicant has extenuating circumstances with his property due to its shape and location, and that 33' of fence is hardly noticeable. Gustafson made a motion to approve Appeal 2231 for the hardships stated. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Keating, Krause, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None. Appeal 2231 was approved. 5. APPEAL 2232 — Approved: Address: 524 S. Washington Petitioner: Joe Menetre, Owner Zone: NCL Sections: 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5' to 2.34' in order to allow the existing porch on the south side of the home to be replaced with a new one. The existing porch is already only 2.34' from the lot line, and the new porch will be in the same location. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See Petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides relative to this appeal. 524 S. Washington is located across the street from Dunn Elementary School. The home itself complies with the 5' setback. However, along the south side of the property and along the rear of the home, there is an older porch addition which covers a concrete area. There is a portion of this existing porch that is only 2.34' from the property line. The proposal is to remove the existing porch and construct a new one in the same location that is somewhat smaller. There is a door to the back of the garage that is protected by the current porch which Applicant wants to continue to protect to prevent this area from flooding, etc. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 6 Board Ouestions: Board Member Breth asked about the location of the neighbor who provided feedback that this variance request was okay with her. Barnes mentioned that this neighbor lives on Mulberry and is not affected by this proposal. Chairperson Shannon asked if there is a house to the south of Applicant's property. Barnes confirmed that there is. Applicant Participation: Applicant Joe Menetre addressed the Board. He mentioned that he wants to be able to reconstruct a porch in its current location, in part, to keep rain out of the garage. He has previously had water damage in the garage. The concrete slab slopes back in towards the garage door. He is concerned that if the porch must be pushed back to meet setback requirements, he will have increased water damage. Board Member Gustafson asked Applicant if he would be removing and replacing the existing roof. Applicant confirmed that he would be doing this, and mentioned that the replacement roof would not be as long as what is currently there. Barnes mentioned that he discussed this variance with Chief Building Official Felix Lee regarding the building code requirement that a structure must be fire rated/fire protected if it does not meet a 3' setback from the property line. After reviewing the proposal, and based on the fact that the current porch will be replaced with a shorter porch, Mr. Lee authorized a waiver of the 3' building code requirement conditioned on the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals on this matter. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Board Member Keating mentioned that he had no problems with the proposal. Board Member Gustafson mentioned that this is a very narrow lot, only 45', and recognized that the size of the lot presents the Applicant with some issues. Because of this, and since Applicant will actually be reducing the size of the porch, he, also, was in favor of the proposal. Gustafson made a motion to approve Appeal 2232 for the hardships stated. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Keating, Krause, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None. E Appeal 2232 was approved. 6. APPEAL 2233 — Approved: Address: 226 W. Laurel/642 S. Howes Petitioner: Rick Reider, Owner Zone: CC Sections: 3.5.2(D)(3) Background: • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 7 For 226 W. Laurel, the variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the north property line from 15' to 7' and reduce the side yard setback requirement from the east lot line from 5' to I' in order to allow the rear portion of the existing duplex to be demolished and reconstructed. The existing side setback along the east is already only 1'. For 642 S. Howes, the variance would reduce the required rear setback from the east lot line from 15' to 5' in order to allow the existing barn/garage to be relocated on the lot. The existing rear setback is only about F from the lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See Petitioner's letter. In addition, the lots are small and the proposed setbacks from the east lot line will be no closer than what already exists. To accommodate the Landmark Preservation Commission decision, the addition needs to be 1-story instead of 2, meaning that the building footprint has to be expanded to the north. Staff Comments: A copy of the letter from the acting Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission dated July 23, 1998 was provided in Board Member packets. The Commission felt that a one story addition was more appropriate than the 2-story addition that the Applicant initially proposed to them, and they ruled accordingly. Their ruling is set out in the above -referenced letter. Barnes presented slides relative to this variance. There are two properties in question in this Appeal. One of the properties is located in the 200 block of Laurel Street, across from campus. The other property is located at 642 S. Howes. These two properties, along with the property at 230 W. Laurel are under the same ownership. At 226 W. Laurel, the proposal is to demolish a portion of the rear of the home and to construct an addition in its place. This request requires a variance along the rear property line (reduction from 15' to 7') and a variance along the east property line (reduction from 5' to 1'). The home is currently at a 1' setback along the east property line, so the proposed addition would not encroach beyond the 1' that already exists. The home located at 230 W. Laurel, currently goes back towards the north quite a bit further than the home at 226 W. Laurel. The proposed addition for 226 W. Laurel, will line up with the back wall of the home at 230 W. Laurel, making both homes the same distance from the north property line. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 8 The property at 642 S. Howes currently has a garage/barn which the Applicant, under his proposal, would preserve (in accordance with the request of the Landmark Preservation Commission) and relocate on the lot. There is a driveway that exists between 226 and 230 W. Laurel. The Applicant's proposal is to construct a parking lot in the location where the garage/bam currently exists, and to extend the existing driveway to the new parking lot. This parking lot would serve all three properties: 226 & 230 W. Laurel; 642 S. Howes. The Applicant's proposal also adds parking lot landscaping and fencing in compliance with the code. There is heavy vegetation that currently exists between 226 and 230 W. Laurel. This would be cleaned up at the time the driveway is extended. Board Ouestions: Board Member Breth asked about the intended use of the garage/barn. Barnes was not sure what the intended use would be and thought the Applicant could better address this issue. Applicant Participation: Applicant Rick Reider addressed the Board. He mentioned that these properties are student rentals that are located across the street from CSU. He has owned two of the properties for about 15 years and has just recently acquired the property at 226 W. Laurel. One of the reasons the Applicant acquired this property was so he could clean up this corner site which is readily visible from the CSU entrance. Due to the age of the homes and buildings that are subject to this Appeal, Applicant has worked with the Landmark Preservation Commission on issues related to construction, preservation, etc. The rear portion of the home at 226 W. Laurel is in difficult shape and needs to be rebuilt. During Applicant's discussions with the Landmark Preservation Committee, it was suggested that he go back with construction, rather than create a 2-story addition that would be more readily visible from the street. 226 W. Laurel is a duplex with two separate, distinct units. The 1' side setback is currently in place, and Applicant wants to maintain the existing foundation and basement and simply build over top of it. The rear setback reduction is being proposed to create more of a ranch - style construction, rather than a 2-story construction. Very little, if any, of this construction would be evident from either Howes Street or Laurel Street. In an effort to preserve the garage/bam, a new foundation will be built that the barn will be moved on top of in an effort to salvage it. The garage/bam is currently sitting within 1' of the rear property line. When it is moved, it will be 5' from the property line, so the barn would actually be located 4' further in on the property than where it current sets. Moving the garage/barn would allow Applicant to make better use of this area, add parking, etc. The fixture use of the garage/bam is anticipated to be bicycle storage with a nice picnic area for the students and additional parking around it. Applicant desires to make the overall site more safe and more pleasant for the residents. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 9 There is a lot of overgrown vegetation between 230 W. Laurel and 226 W. Laurel that would be removed and replaced with other shrubs and trees that would be planted along the driveway that has been proposed between the two properties. Board Member Stockover asked if additional housing is being created. Applicant answered that no additional housing units are being created than currently exist. 226 W. Laurel is currently a duplex and will remain that way. However, the new construction that is being proposed will increase the number of allowable tenants in the back duplex unit from two to three. Board Member Breth asked if there is going to be a basement underneath the addition. Applicant mentioned that the part of the house that is being demolished is a full basement with one story above it. The new construction will maintain the basement, but it will be converted into a utility room, will house the furnace, etc., and would not have open access to it. A private entrance would be maintained for ownership and/or maintenance personnel. The area under the new addition will be either a crawl space or slab on grade. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Board Member Breth mentioned that this is a narrow, small -lot situation. He did not feel that relocation of the barn would have any impact on surrounding areas. The barn is already closer to the lot line now than it will be after it is moved, other than on the north side. The driveway off of Laurel will be cleaned up and in better shape than what currently exists after the renovation takes place. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2233 based on the hardships stated. Board Member Keating seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Keating, Krause, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None. Appeal 2233 was approved. • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 10 6. APPEAL 2234 — Approved: Address: 229 S. Sherwood Petitioner: Jay Hatfield, Owner Zone: NCM Sections: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along the Olive Street property line from 15' to 1.5' in order to allow an old covered porch to be removed from the south side of the home and replaced with a new, larger enclosed porch. The old porch was already at a IN setback, and the new one will be at the same setback, but will extend 6' further to the west, and 2' further to the east. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home itself is only 7.5' from the lot line, so any porch constructed over the entrance will require a variance. The new porch will not be located any closer to the lot line than the old one. In fact, the old stairs will be moved to the rear, so there will be less of an encroachment. The lot is narrow -- only 39'. The porch will still be 22' behind the curb. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides relative to this appeal. The home is located at the corner of Sherwood Street and Olive Street. The porch that is in question is currently under construction. Personnel from the City of Fort Collins Building Inspection department noticed that it was under construction, checked and found that there was no permit, and issued a stop work order on the project. Applicant has since applied for this variance to allow a reduction in the required street side setback from 15' to 1.5'. The property line is about 4' behind the sidewalk. In this part of town, the property line is 20' behind the curb. There is 12' from the curb to the sidewalk, then there is the sidewalk, then another 4' before the property line. The home is already only 7.5' from the property line. The proposed porch addition will be about 22' from the curb. In newer subdivisions, the building is approximately 24' from the curb. Board Ouestions: Board Member Breth asked if there were any plans to widen Olive Street. Barnes answered that he was not aware of any. Applicant Participation: Applicant Jay Hatfield addressed the Board. He provided Board Members with photos of the original porch prior to when the current project was started. This project started as a repair, and then went a step beyond. Applicant has no intention of encroaching upon the property line. There is a cellar entrance from the Olive Street side that sort of necessitated building in • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 11 the current location; however, Applicant moved the entrance into the back yard to get off of the property line a bit. Board Member Keating asked if the design would be the same as the house. Applicant confirmed that this would be the case. Chairperson Shannon asked the Applicant for drawings. Applicant offered his building plans to Board Members for their review. Public Participation: Susan Shepard addressed the Board. She is neighbor who lives directly across the street at 228 S. Sherwood. She provided the Board with letters from neighbors in support of this project. She mentioned that over the past year Applicant has done several carpentry jobs for her and that he does beautiful work. She mentioned that he has a strong sense of appearance and balance and that he has very good taste. Ms. Shepard mentioned that the Applicant's original porch was completely enclosed and not very attractive. The proposed porch opens this space, and is much more aesthetically pleasing. To do this, however, the Applicant was forced to give up a lot of storage room. Trying to recapture some of the storage that was lost in the front is the reason the size of the back porch was increased. She encouraged Board Members to grant the Applicant's request. Board Discussion: Barnes read the letters from the Applicant's neighbors that were provided by Ms. Shepard. Board Member Keating mentioned that this is a typical corner lot/narrow lot situation. He made a motion that Appeal 2234 be approved based on the hardships stated. Board Member Gustafson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Keating, Krause, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None. Appeal 2234 was approved. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Barnes mentioned that the September meeting is the annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Elections for Chair and Vice Chair will be done at this time. Barnes mentioned that in May, numerous revisions were adopted to the Land Use Code. He provided Board Members with copies. A new Board Member list was provided. • • ZBA August 13, 1998 Page 12 New Board Member Kathryn Krause briefly shared with the Board some background information. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. Diane Shannon, Chairperson E'e.$v, /3 a' � Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator