Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/11/2005FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — August 11, 2005 8:30 a.m. IlCouncil Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 Phone: (H) 224-4029 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 11, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support for the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 14, 2005 meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. Dickson abstained. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO 2519 - Approved Address: 500 91h Street Petitioner: Steve Fobes, Home State Bank Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D) (2) (d) ZBA August 11, 2005 — Page 2 Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the Romero Street side lot line from 15' to 8.9' in order to allow a house to be moved onto this vacant lot. Specifically, a move of the house currently at the northwest corner of Raintree Drive and Shields Street is proposed for the site. A covered front entry will be constructed on the front of the home and the front setback from 9th Street will match the setback of existing homes along 9th Street. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The approved, platted lot has only 50' of lot width. The home will be donated to Habitat for Humanity, but it's been difficult to find lots for this project. The street side setback is unachievable on this lot due to the size of the existing house on the 50' wide lot. Staff Comments: At the July 14th meeting, the Board voted to table this item to allow the applicant to gather more information, revise the plans to include a front entry on Ninth, and to meet with neighbors. The applicant has done all of that and the neighbors are satisfied with the proposal. If the Board determines that the setback along Romero is in keeping with the established character of the neighborhood, then it might be feasible to consider this variance inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The petitioner provided neighborhood architectural inventory information prepared by a surveyor. Code allows a 10-15 foot contextual setback in older neighborhoods if it is not set any further forward than the neighboring homes. The museum a little east of the home on Romero Street has zero setback. Applicant Participation: Scott Kraft of BHA Design did not have too much to add beyond what had already been covered in the staff presentation. He noted the site plan illustrates the new proposal. Karen McWilliams, a Historic Preservation Planner for the City of Fort Collins, said that Home State Bank and Habitat for Humanity had met with the neighbors. The group discussed how Habitat could place the home on the lot to maintain the historic character of the neighborhood. They asked for a setback as close to 10 feet as achievable. Board Discussion: Board members appreciated the "homework" Home State Bank had done since the July meeting to address the neighbors concerns. McBride wondered if having the front door in the center of the front was feasible given the home's floor plan and structural constraints. Hall said he was willing to consider a variance without conditions given the collaborative effort of the parties involved. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2519 for the reasons it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard. The setbacks are consistent with adjoining properties and the side yard setback (on 91' Street) abuts the street open space and is consistent with the neighborhood. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO 2523 - Withdrawn ZBA August 11, 2005 — Page 3 Address: Maple Hill Petitioner: Brad Lenz Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) Background: The variance would be a blanket variance for numerous lots in the Maple Hill Subdivision, including Lots in Blocks 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 27. The variance would reduce the interior side yard setback on numerous lots from 5' to no less than 4.5', and reduce the corner side yard setback on numerous lots from 15' to no less than 14.5' in order to allow single family dwelling units up to 40' in width to be constructed. This variance was denied by the Board on July 14, 2005, but new evidence and information is being provided at this time. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The variance is nominal and inconsequential, resulting at the most of setback reduction of 6 inches. Half of the lots will only be reduced by approximately 2 inches. In addition, the subdivision includes two streets that were planned and developed at a wider width than required. This was due to an error in the street master plan of the City. The wider road width resulted in the platting of lots that were narrower than what the code requires. By the time the developer received approval from the City to provide narrower streets, the project was too far into the development process to revise all the documents. Staff Comments: Barnes reported the applicant had withdrawn his request for a variance. 5. Appeal NO. 2524 - Approved Address 531 Skyway Drive Petitioner William Rogers Zone RL Section 4.3(D)(2) (b) and (c) Background: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Skyway Drive from 20 feet to 15 feet and reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15' to 9' in order to allow a new house to be constructed facing Skyway Drive instead of Parliament Court. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The recorded plat contains a restriction that prohibits driveway access from Skyway Drive. Therefore, the garage must be accessed from Parliament Court. It's the owner's desire to have a side -loaded garage rather than one that dominates the front of the house. Prior to a code change a couple of years ago, the proposed site layout would not have required a variance. This subdivision and this lot were platted based on the previous code that would have allowed the proposal. However, with the code change, the lot provides only a 30' deep building envelope for a house facing Skyway, instead of the 45' deep envelope that was in effect prior to the code change. The proposed layout results in a situation where only a portion of the rear of the home encroaches into the 15' rear setback and mainly just the front porch encroaching into the front setback. The majority of the building complies with the required setbacks. ZBA August 11, 2005 — Page 4 Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: William Rogers stated that having driveway access on Skyway is not allowed as it's a collector street. Given that constraint, the property owner's proposal is for a side -loaded garage rather than one that dominates the front of the house. They've visited with all the neighbors (including Mr. Bassett, the neighbor most impacted by the design.) All agree the proposal is workable and they are eager to have a family build there on what has been a vacant lot for some time. Board Discussion: Miscio & Hall agreed granting a variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard. They agree the neighborhood would be improved with the proposed home. The Board believes the Rogers suffer a hardship in that driveway access is not available to them on Skyway. McBride said there are mitigating factors in the house is not parallel with the rear lot line and it leaves an average 15 foot rear yard setback. Miscio noted the Rogers have another hardship in that the lot is configured in a manner that could present a hardship in design and construction. Pisula noted that strict adherence would require a building not in character with the neighborhood and not support the standard. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2524 in that granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and because of a series of characteristics there are hardships related to placement of the building: access to the garage, configuration of the lot and placement of the structure in a manner that satisfies the code. Also the amount of encroachment is such a small area that it lends itself to the'nominal and inconsequential argument. McBride seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 6. Appeal NO. 2525 -- Approved with condition Address 217 W. Horsetooth Drive Petitioner Mathew Hoeven Zone CF Section 3.8.7 (A) (2) Background: The variance would allow a sign to project above the fascia wall. Specifically, the variance would allow the Chipper's Lane sign that is placed on the east end of the recently installed canopy to remain where it is. The sign graphic extends above the fascia wall by a small amount. ZBA August 11, 2005 —Page 5 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The building has a pitched roof with the entrance at the side walls and approximately 10 feet tall at that point. An awning could not be mounted any lower above the entrance thus the awning had to project above the fascia wall. Staff Comments: The height of the building wall is shorter than many buildings and the eave soffit / fascia is not large enough to place a sign on. However, a canopy of a different design could have been constructed in a manner that eliminated the projection above the top of the wall. So in that respect, any hardship could be construed to be self-imposed. To satisfy the "equal to or better than" standard, the Board should determine whether or not this particular canopy promotes the intent of the code equally well as would a canopy of a different design. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: Mathew Hoeven had nothing to add except they are coming before the Board after the fact —the offending canopy had been installed about nine months previously. The offending canopy was a result of a misunderstanding between them and the general contractor. The new structure had been added to provide protection from the elements for their patrons and their long term plan is to improve the fascia to cover the air conditioning units visible from the street. Danielle Grant, the designer, said the particular sign was designed to be centered and to aesthetically compliment the roundness at the end of the canopy. Hall wondered if the applicant would be okay with replacing the canvas part of the structure and bringing the sign below the roof line (as required.) Mr. Hoeven agreed they could. Board Discussion: Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2525 in that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. Further the applicant suffers a hardship because of a low roof line --while an awning is appropriate in this application it cannot be lowered. Also, the lettering on the sign above the roofline is nominal and inconsequential. The motion to approve is conditioned on when the awning or the canvas on the awning is replaced, the offending lettering come into compliance with the code. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None Appeal NO. 2526 — Approved with condition Address 3318 Santa Fe Court Petitioner Grego Yturiaga Zone RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(c) ZBA August 11, 2005 — Page 6 Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard set back from 10' to 7.5 ' in order to allow an existing deck to have a pergola (sunshade) constructed over the top. The existing deck currently sits at the 7.5' setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing deck is already at the 7.5' setback and the owner would like the entire deck to be covered. It backs up to open space. Staff Comments: This is similar to other variances that the Board has granted using the "equal to or better than" standard since the lot abuts open space. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The south side of the property faces Shields and the northern side abuts open space. Applicant Participation: Greg Yturiaga, the contractor representing the owner, described a pergola type structure with no sides and vines covering the upper portion of the structure to provide shade. Snow load would not be a consideration in the construction. Board Discussion: Mr. Yturiaga addressed Board concerns in the area of: the cross beams already there and how substantial the structure would be. The Board was assured that it would strictly be for sun shade with no sides. Donahue made a motion to approve appeal 2526 for the reasons it is not detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard since the property abuts open space and does not affect adjacent properties' air, light and space. The approval is conditioned on the trellises would not be enclosed for the life of the structure —would not become a sun room. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 8. Other Business. The Board, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman and Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes discussed general guidelines when considering the facts of a variance request, the intent of applicable code, and acting in a way not detrimental to the public good yet evaluating/acting on the merits of a request. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Wight Hall7Ch��airp son Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator