Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/08/1996ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING August 8, 1996 8:30am 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 8, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon. Members absent: Felner, Gustafson. Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Elain Radford, Building & Zoning The meeting was called to order by Chairman Breth. First order of business was to approve minutes of the July 1996 meeting. Appeal 2178 2425 Poplar Drive by Bob Bunger, owner, RLZone, partially approved Section 29-133(4) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 ft. to 6 ft. for two proposed sheds in the back yard. The sheds will be moved from another site onto this lot. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A large, mature Ash tree would have to be removed in order to allow "Shed A" to meet the required setback. There is also a slope in the "Shed A" comer that creates some limitations. A clothes line exists (and is used) and a pool also exists in the area where "Shed B" is proposed. The sheds exist on another site and are owned by the owner's family and they would like to utilize them on their property. The sheds are under the 120 sq. ft. size requirement, but exceed the 8 ft. height limit. --- Staff Comments: None --- There were two letters received and read into the record (copies attached). 9 Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Barnes passed out to the Board photographs, supplied by the petitioners, of the two sheds that currently exist on another site, in the Denver area, and they would like to move them onto their property. He pointed out that the sheds are marked Shed A and Shed B on the site plans and that both of the sheds are under 120 sq. ft. in size but they both exceed the 8 ft. in height requirement. Any shed that is larger than 120 sq. ft. and/or taller than 8 feet the city does regulate, they are required to get building permits, and those structures have to meet the required setbacks for that zoning district - the same setbacks that would apply to a house, garage, or any other structure regulated. Since these proposed sheds are taller than 8 ft., they do need to meet the code requirements. Barnes went through a slide presentation to show where the sheds would be proposed. Shed A would be located on the southeast corner of the lot. There is a large mature tree, as explained in the petitioner's statement of hardship. There is a slope about in the middle of the yard between the tree and the house. The proposed shed would be about 6 ft. from the back property line and approximately 12 ft. from the east property line. Shed B is proposed to be in the southwest corner of the lot at the same setback from the rear property line. This shed would be closer to the side property line, however. It would be about 5 ft.from the west lot line. He pointed out a number of sheds on adjacent properties. Next door a variance was granted to the rear setback of that shed in 1978. Board member Keating asked about the white bldg. Bames responded that it is another storage shed on the property behind to the south. Breth asked if it had been granted a variance to be that close. Barnes stated that he did not know how long it's been there. The height limit on sheds did not kick in until about 7 years ago so some sheds that exceeded the height limit of the 8 ft. may have been there before we started regulating those sheds. Board member Breth asked if Barnes had any dimensions on this lot. Barnes stated the lot is 70' x 110', 7700 sq ft. Applicant stepped forward to state his case: Bob Bunger and wife, Susan. Explained that his wife has the sheds on her folk's property in Denver and would like to move them to their property here to utilize them. If they were to go with the 15 ft. setback, the tree, clothesline, and slope prohibit them unless it's right next to the house. This is why they want the variance within 6 ft. of the back fence. Mrs. Bunger explained that she inherited property from her parents in 1988 and wants to move the sheds here in order to sell the property in Wheatridge. She eventually wants to buy duplexes and move the sheds to the site where the duplexes would be. Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 3 Board member Shannon asked if the concrete block base would elevate the sheds higher. Will they put the concrete base into the ground? Mr. Bunger stated the concrete base would be ground level. The sheds are about 10 ft. tall and they don't want to go any higher. Mrs. Bunger stated that they chose the lower slope because it is lower and pointed out a shed to the east that is also 6 ft. from the back fence. Board member Stockover asked if they know the height of the shed from the baseline to the peak? It looks like it is setting about 12 ft. up the way it is setting in the pictures. Mr. Bunger explained that due to a flooding problem the shed was set on 8x8 board pilons. The proposed sheds will be set flush with the ground so the siding goes all the way to the ground. Board member Shannon asked if the pool and swingset could be moved: Mrs. Bunger explained that there is a sandbox underneath the pool, for drainage, that is sunk into the ground with 4x4 landscaping timbers all around. It's permanently there. We could move it but would rather not. Board member Breth stated: the obvious question is if the trampoline couldn't stay where it is and the sheds move up on top? Mr. Bunger responded that the drawings do not show the actual distance around the tree that the tree takes up. A limb coming out of the tree, that offers a lot of shade, would have to come down because there is not enough height or room for a shed there. Board member Breth asked if this topographical change, from higher to lower, goes all the way across the lot or does it stop somewhere? Mr. Bunger stated it goes through the raspberries but the slope is gradual at that point. Breth asked for Board discussion. No discussion. He asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this appeal. Robert Moore, who submitted a letter, came forward and stated that he has no objections whatsoever. He lives right across the back fence from the Bungers. They are good neighbors and he wishes all their neighbors were that good. The presence of those two sheds will not hurt the neighborhood in any way. 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 4 Breth asked if anyone in the audience would care to speak against this case. No one came forward. Board member Shannon stated she could see the problem of the tree for Shed A but that it looks like they have alternatives for Shed B. Board member Keating stated he has a hard time finding the hardship, however, the neighborhood appears to already have a multiplicity of them. And, while he is sure they could move the sheds around and make them fit in, he doesn't think it would be fair to restrict them when there are so many sheds all the way around. It seems to be accepted by all the neighbors. Board member Breth stated he sees part of the hardship does exist with the topography of the lot near Shed A, but is having a hard time with Shed B because he feels it could be moved over a little bit - closer to the pool and more out of the garden area which would almost bring it into the 15 ft compliance. Mr. Bunger stated they use that spot between the garden and the pool to put the swingset there, but that is a moveable object. The clothesline pole they use a lot and the sidewalk coming down to the shed - they had put Shed B at the end of the sidewalk for ease of getting in and out and to not have to tear up the sidewalk. Board member Keating asked about the wife's statement regarding buying a duplex and moving the sheds to the duplexes. Mr. Bunger stated they are looking at selling the property in Denver and reinvest that in some other property, but that is future plans. Board member Shannon asked if the clothesline is set in concrete? Mrs. Bunger responded yes. Breth stated he will entertain a motion. Board member Shannon moved that Appeal 2178 be approved for Shed A only, due to the hardship created by the slope of the land and the tree. Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon. Nays: none. The motion passed. Zoning Administrator Barnes explained to the appelants that the Board granted Shed A as described on their plans. Shed B would have to comply with the setbacks - they have the option of trying to shuffle things around in the yard and make it fit in. Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 5 Appeal 2179, 951 Laporte Avenue by Janet Meisel, owner, approved, Section 29-119(5) --- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Mack Street from 15 ft to 11 ft (9 ft at the location of the proposed fireplace cantilever). The variance is requested in order to allow the construction of a 576 sq. ft. second floor addition. The walls of the addition will be built right on top of the existing walls. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house is an older house which is nonconforming with regards to the street side setback. The home is small, containing only one bedroom. The only other location for an addition would be on to the south side of the home, but that is where an active solar energy sun room is located, so an addition on the south would block the southern windows. The lot is narrow, only 48.75 ft. --- StaffComments: Section 29-41(c) of the Code stipulates the "hardships" that maybe taken into consideration by the ZBA in determining whether or not a variance can be granted. One such situation is a condition "which hinders the owner's ability to install a solar energy system." This particular variance request deals with a situation wherein the owner is claiming that the only other place to add on to the house without a variance would result in the existing solar energy system being made useless. Even though the system is already there, as opposed to "being installed," the Board may determine that the above -mentioned hardship condition is still applicable. Zoning Administrator Barnes explained that this property located on the corner of Laporte and Mack, in the older part of town, has a situation that is not uncommon. Many of the homes in thi; part of town do not comply with the setbacks that are in effect today. This is one such home where it is noncomplying with regards to the setback along the west property line - along Mack Street. The current home is 11 ft. from that property line. He explained the slides: The existing wall is 11 ft. from Mack. Mack is one of the narrower streets in the downtown area, at least on the west side. The existing wall of the home is about 11 ft. setback and the proposal is to add on to the portion over the existing rear of the house. It looks like it would be about as high as the chimney. The sloped addition in the back is a working solar addition that has all the heat containment facilities and distribution facilities to meet our definition of solar energy system. The only other location on the lot to add on, rather than up, is to the rear of the house which would make the existing solar energy addition nonfunctional. So the proposal is to go up and add on along the existing wall on the south side. There would be a fireplace cantilever proposed on that side which would be 9 ft. from the property line, other than that the rest of the new construction would line up with the existing, and would be incompliance. Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 6 Board member Breth asked if this addition is going over the top of the solar. Barnes stated, yes. Breth asked if they aren't taking away from the purpose of the solar collector. Barnes stated the petitioner could explain the south facing windows may still make it functional. Breth asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if the applicant would care to step forward. Janel Meisel, applicant, pointed out that the part that would be covered up are skylights, they are not solar collectors. In the way the roof was designed with a small overhang, she gets full solar penetration through the windows, in the winter, all the way to the back wall. So, the skylights are not an active collection system. Breth asked if there is anyone in the audience that wanted to speak in favor of this appeal. No one responded. He asked if there is anyone who wanted to speak against this appeal. No one responded. Janet Meisel pointed out that she also has the same problem with her clothesline - there is a concrete pole set in - and to emphasize that she does use her solar room probably 300 days out of the year, if not more, and she would really hate to lose that. Keating asked that when she adds this she will increase her solar by quite a bit. Ms. Meisel responded that is correct - on the south side on the 2nd floor. In fact the proposal is to have a portion of the 2nd floor, in the southeast corner, would be fully open to the 1 st floor so it would be a cathedral ceiling and would still gain solar mass from the 2nd floor all the way down to the 1st floor. Keathing asked if she is going to move the brick wall up further? Ms. Meisel stated the intent is to not move the brick wall. Shannon asked for clarification on the only thing that would be different would be the fireplace. Barnes stated that this the only portion of the proposal that would extend closer to the property line. Certainly the wall would be higher. 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 7 Keating asked if the appelant has considered putting the fireplace some place else? Ms. Meisel stated that the opportunity could exist on the east but it's not really the functional living area of the sun room so my preference is to keep it on the west. In addition, there are a full set of windows, behind the choke cherry tree, that I never use because they face the street and for the noise so I was going to close that wall in and put the fireplace there because I don't need the windows. Keating stated that he also assumes that it would just be a box on the side of the house because the fireplace is gas. Ms. Meisel stated yes and that the box is about 4 ft. wide and extends about 2 ft. and is not more than 6 ft. tall. It won't be visible from the street. Breth stated he recognizes the narrowness of the lot does create the hardship. Again we have existing obstruction from adding on to the south and the solar room can't be blocked or moved at this point so he favored granting the appeal. Lieser agreed and stated that this Board often takes into consideration the narrowness of a lot into hardship and this is a very narrow lot - 48.75 ft. She does not see any problem with the addition. She motioned for approval of Appeal 2178 for the hardship that the lot is narrow. Keating seconded the motion. Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon. Nays: none. The motion passed. Appeal 2180, 1113 W. Olive Street by Joe Frye buyer, approved with condition Section 29-119(l), 29-119(3), 29-119(4) --- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 sq. ft. to 3000 sq. ft., reduce the required front yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft., and reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft. The variances are necessary to allow a 744 sq ft. home to be moved from the 1100 block of W. Oak Street onto this old city substation lot. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot used to be a city of Fort Collins substation and was created for that use, therefore, it is small. Without a variance nothing can be built. A similar variance was granted in 1985, but the owner never built the house. --- Staff Comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 8 Zoning Administrator Barnes explained that he is handing out an amended site plan. The changes are that the square footage of the existing house turns out to be 744 rather than 656. The setbacks and everything else remains the same. The only other difference would be that to accommodate that extra foot you'll see towards the alley there is the dimension, going towards the middle of the parking area, that 22 feet was changed to 21. Going through the slides for this particular property he indicated this lot used to be a city substation and the lot was basically created for that purpose years ago. It originally was the back half of another lot. Also, on the 2nd sheet you received from the petitioner, is a copy of the quarter section plat regarding this area and shows all the various lots and the petitioner will go through that and indicate what the colors mean, etc. This lot used to be the back portion of the lot that fronts on Scott Street. It was sold off and created as a 3000 sq. ft. lot for the city to build a substation on. Nothing has been built on there since the substation was removed. In 1985, as indicated, the Board granted a similar variance for the lot area setbacks, and things of that nature, but the owner has never exercised that variance and it has long since expired. The garage to the back of the picture is on the lot next door and is accessed off the alley - is the back portion of that lot fronting on Scott Street. So, this lot used to be the same depth as that particular lot and most of the others on the street. The small house they are moving onto the lot is on the next block to the south, on Oak Street, and the proposal would be to move this house onto the old substation lot. Barnes showed slides of the house to be moved. Breth asked if this is the same owner who got the variance in 1985. Barnes stated that Joe Vansant was the owner at that time and is still the owner of the property. Joe Frye would like to buy the lot. Keating asked if the utility poles in place are being used - are there wires connected to them. Barnes stated that they are in use - there are wires connected to them. Joe Frye, applicant, stated that he has talked with Light & Power about the wires. There are two sets of guy wires with yellow sleeves on them: the furtherest set belongs to the phone company and the long set, closest to us, belongs to Light & Power. Part of our proposal here as far as development of the site is to provide parking off the alley. He has talked to them about moving the guy wires and they said it can be done. As far as the removal of those poles, they have undergrounded virtually everything in that area. The phone wires are the only thing left and there is no schedule for when they will come in and take their lines down. Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Frye explained slides of the house he wants to move. It was put there 50 years ago. It was actually on the back of the lot and someone moved it to the front of the lot. It's scale and quality doesn't fit with that block of Oak. The house as it sits is 744 sq. ft. He showed four examples of comparable rear lot houses in the old part of town. One of the things he wants to do in moving the house is to also rennovate the house so it has some curb appeal and, by putting a basement under it, give scale to it so it can actually be used for something. Our proposal is to put a full basement under it which would double the size of it. Then add a porch to it, paint it , and do some other rennovations to it that would give it some character that would make it marketable. He wants to put a picket fence in the front of the house and create a cottage effect with the house. Our proposal is to try to site the house so it has orientation to Olive Street, to create some yard space and parking off street in the alley. We're asking for the setbacks to be amended to allow us to move the house and develop it as indicated on the plan. Breth asked if the basement would be another apartment or rental unit. Mr. Frye stated that the basement means more space and makes it more valuable, but that it would not be an apartment. Zoning Administrator Barnes interjected that the property is in a zone that prohibits duplexes. If the owners wanted to convert that they would have to do a PUD and go the the Planning and Zoning Board. Breth asked if the Board had questions. There were no questions. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor of this appeal. No response. He asked if anyone in the audience who is against this appeal. No response. Barnes pointed out that if the Board moves to approve a variance here, they may want to consider putting some conditions on it. For example, for a house of this size or for that house in particular. They may even want to consider conditions on requiring the fence as illustrated by the applicant. Breth commented that this could be a step towards affordable housing, which we don't have in this town. He would be more in favor of approving this limiting it to the house that is going to be moved from Oak Street rather than just a blanket setback approval so that something else could go in without having the details of the fencing and the improvements of the sidewalk and alley as shown here. 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 10 Keating asked Barnes if the history of this lot is known. Did the city sell this lot to the gentleman who now owns it? How long ago? Barnes replied, yes, the previous variance was in 1985 but thinks he owned the lot before that. The current owner is in the audience and can addresss that. Joe Vansant, current owner who lives at 119 West Lake, stated he bought the property contingent upon his variance being accepted. So the variance was given before he purchased it from the city. He stated he designed a house specifically for it but has not had the right opportunity to build on it. When he got his variance he found a dozen houses with smaller lots and floor space within two blocks of this site. The proposal isn't out of character in this neighborhood at all. Keating commented that when he first came on the Board, Peter Barnes told him they are supposed to make official comments so City Council knows that they are trying to say something to them. It seems that if the city sold the lot to someone and it is already unbuildable - it is kind of hard to deny anything when the city is holding the lot. I don't know whether the city should be doing that. I feel that comment should be made. I know he has to come here to get a variance because that is the way the rules read. I don't want to hold back enterprising entrepreuneurs since I am one, too. The city should think about that type of thing before they do it. I vote in favor of this as stated with the fences and it would be this house. Shannon stated her approval for this proposed development of the site, that it would be in character with the neighborhood and would certainly be an improvement. Stockover asked if the Board approves this as drawn and then Engineering doesn't approve it, would he have to get another variance? Barnes responded that the sidewalk may be the only issue because it is in the public right of way. If Engineering doesn't want the sidewalk, then that couldn't be in there. The fence is on private property and isn't regulated by Engineering. Stockover asked, what about the parking? Barnes commented that, regarding the parking coming off the alley where the applicant is proposing it, that Engineering typically would require that the alley be paved to the south lot line of this lot. We generally encourage people to take access off the alley rather than curb cuts off the street. • Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 11 Deputy City Attorney Eckman commented that one thing that might have been done that would have been wiser is that, way back when electric utility acquired this property, maybe they should have had a reversion clause in the deed where if they ceased to use it for substation purposes, it reverted back to the lot from which it came. But since that wasn't done, we've got this very small lot. Breth opened for motion unless there is more Board discussion and stated that it seems to him that this is a small lot and fits within the criteria of a small lot. The city has obviously sold it with the intent that whoever bought it could build on it, otherwise, they would've sold it to the other part of the original lot. Stockover moved to approve petition 2180 with the condition that the project comply with the revised plan dated 7/30/96. Keating seconded the motion. Barnes asked if he wanted to indicate for the specific house. Stockover replied that it is stated in the petition as that specific house. Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon. Nays: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS: Zoning Administrator Barnes referenced a memo from the Planning department regarding "City Plan" - the city's effort to rewrite the comprehensive plan and basically restructure the way the city is zoned and how we do zoning. One of the phases, or stages, of the city's review and adoption is called "Principles and Policies" which is in full swing. The Planning department is asking that a presentation be given in September or October for each of the boards and commissions who would like to have a presentation about this phase. Principles & Policies takes the ideas established in community vision and goals 2015, and organized in the City Structure Plan, and defines each place shown in the City Structure Plan in more detail incorporating the location, mix and intensity of uses, orientation and scale of streets, access to transit and other important city structure plan elements. 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 8, 1996 Page 12 15-20 minute presentation on our agenda for our September meeting approved. Barnes will arrange with Planning Department. September 12, 1996 meeting: --- Schedule Planning department presentation. --- Annual meeting and election of officers - so we need everyone present. --- Mayor will meet with this board at catered breakfast to stasrt at 7:45am. Actual meeting will start at 8:45am. The meeting was adjourned. Marty Breth, Chairperson 19,& 13 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator