Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/09/2006r FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — February 9, 2006 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall Phone: (H) 224-4029 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 9, 2006 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson 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: Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 12, 2006 meeting. McBride seconded the motion. The motion passed with Miscio abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO 2538 - Approved Address: 6302 Treestead Road Petitioner: Dennis Steenbergen Zone: UE Section: 4.1(D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 20' to 15' in order to allow the proposed home to be constructed on this lot. The building will comply with all other setback requirements. ZBA February 9, 2006 — Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. This particular lot is considerably smaller than all the other lots that are located in the UE zoned portion of Westchase. Since the minimum required setbacks for the UE zone are considerably more than other zones, it is difficult to design a house that is comparable to the others on the UE zoned lots in the subdivision that would also comply with all the setbacks. Staff Comments: The Board could consider this to be a hardship variance based on the uniqueness of the lot (size and narrowness). The lot is located in the portion of the subdivision that is zoned UE. Almost all of the other lots in the UE zoned portion are 7000 to 8000 square feet larger and 20 feet wider. This particular lot is more similar in size to the lots in the subdivision that are located in the LMN zone, wherein only a 5' interior side yard setback and a 15' street side setback are required. It could be difficult for the applicant to build a house that is similar in size to the other houses in the UE zone unless a variance is approved. The Board may also want to consider if this would qualify as a nominal, inconsequential deviation from the code when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Trilby divides the Westchase subdivision with the area north of Trilby zoned LMN and the area on the south zoned UE. This particular parcel (in the UE zone) is 14,000 square feet, which is smaller (and narrower) than other lots in the UE zone. The neighbor's home on the south is 40 feet from the property line. Recently, the neighbor to the east had expressed concern about granting a variance to reduce the south side setback to 15 feet. They're preference is to place the home closer to Trilby on the north —requiring a variance for a 15 foot setback (from the required 20 feet.) The neighbor had contacted the applicant and the applicant was able to get approvals from 5 of the 7 affected neighbors. Agreement was not provided for 2 properties on the LMN side —one owner was not available and the other was for a lot that had not yet sold. Miscio wondered if changing the variance to the Trilby side would affect neighboring home alignments on the south side of Trilby. The lot to the east was unimproved. Hall wondered about the distance from the north lot line to the side of the sidewalk. Barnes stated it was 15 feet from the sidewalk to the street. McBride wondered if they could get access onto Trilby if they wanted. Barnes noted when mapping assigns addresses —corner lots can choose which street they want — in this case Trilby or Treestead. Applicant Participation: Steenbergen has encountered many obstacles n trying to build their home on this lot. Primarily the lot is .32 acres and he's trying to meet the same requirements of .5 acre lots in the UE zone. The homeowners' covenant requires a minimum 2500 square foot home —theirs (with garage) will be a little over 2600 square feet. He considered having only a 2 car garage but 3 car garages are required. He's already scrapped one house (spending $6,000 on architectural plans) and has opted not to remove a tree on the lot because waivers would be required as well as more delays. Board Discussion: Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2538 as amended (application originally submitted for a 15 foot setback variance on the south and was changed (with affected neighbors approval) to a 15 foot setback variance on the north) for the following reasons: the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical conditions unique to the property such as size of the lot being smaller and narrower —neither of which was caused by the act or omission of the applicant. In addition the variance would qualify as a nominal, ZBA February 9, 2006 — Page 3 inconsequential deviation from the code when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Hall seconded. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO 2539 - Approved with Condition Address: 218 S. Loomis Avenue Petitioner: Thomas Massing Zone: NCL Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The home occupation ordinance requires all aspects of a home business to be conducted within the house. The petitioner proposes to use the existing detached garage in connection with his home occupation. Therefore, a variance is required to allow the use of the detached building. Specifically, the petitioner proposes to use the detached garage to store gardening equipment that will be used in connection with his landscape service business. The largest piece of equipment will be a lawnmower. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is no attached garage that can be used for storage of the gardening tools, and there is no proposal to construct a new detached building. The existing detached garage is the only building that is suitable for storage of gardening equipment. If the garage were attached, no variance would be needed. Staff Comments: The Board has heard numerous requests similar to this for properties in the old town neighborhoods, and has generally granted the request, in part based on a finding that if the garage was attached, then there would be no need for a variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. No alley abuts the rear or side of this lot. Other homes in the neighborhood do not have attached garages. Additionally, at this address driveway access has been fenced off with no vehicular access to the garage. Hall asked for background on the home occupation requirements. Barnes said home occupation licenses are granted allowing home owners to conduct business in their neighborhoods but only in a manner that does not disrupt the character, peace and quiet of their neighbors. Normally separate buildings are not allowed —this prevents business such as insurance agents (for example) to construct a new detached building for the purpose of conducting a business in a separate building on their lot. Applicant Participation: Massing conducts a new landscape business. It is a one person operation with one pickup. The garage is needed to store his mower and other miscellaneous items. Miscio wondered if personal items were also stored in the garage —yes both personal and business items will be stored there. ZBA February 9, 2006 — Page 4 Board Discussion: Hall, while he did not have issue with the request, would like to make sure and add conditions that would be limited to this applicant/this business. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2439 for the following reasons: not detrimental to the public good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Also, this property does not have an attached garage. If it did, the applicant to the exact same thing without the need for a variance. Using the existing garage instead of attaching it or constructing a new one, would be less intrusive to the neighborhood. The approval is conditioned on the current garage structure remaining the same and the business, as described, remains the same, with the variance for this applicant only. Hall seconded. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO 2540 - Approved Address: 3621 Richmond Drive Petitioner: Troy Jennings Zone: UE Section: 4.1(D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to allow the construction of a 20 foot by 26 foot addition on the back of the existing detached garage. The new addition will line up with the north wall of the existing garage, which is already only 14' from the lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The owner desires to keep the addition in line with the existing structure, which is already nonconforming. The lot is 2 acres in size. The existing garage is used to store mowers and other equipment that is necessary to maintain the acreage. The addition is necessary in order to accommodate vehicle parking. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property is in the UE zone where a 20 foot side yard setback is required. The neighborhood (with 2 acre parcels) was developed in the County and was later annexed into the City. Consequentially there are a number of nonconforming structures in the neighborhood. The property on the north is the most impacted. It is similar to the applicant's lot in that no structures exist on the south side of their lot and on the north there is a nonconforming out building. Applicant Participation: Jennings noted the property was purchased from his wife's family who had the home for 26 years. Previously they had used the "barn" for a garage and stored most of their equipment in the attached garage. The new owners elected to use the attached garage for their vehicles and want ZBA February 9, 2006 — Page 5 to expand the nonconforming "barn" for storage of lawn equipment and a vintage Volkswagen. They'd like the building to look like their home (with dormers) and use the loft area for storage such as Christmas decorations. They'd like to cover the cinder block construction with siding similar to what is on their home. Board Discussion: Miscio is inclined to approve a variance as the addition would be an improvement for the neighborhood —move outside storage in, remodel and improve. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2540 for the following reasons: not detrimental to the public good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Further this building, on the large lot, is not going to negatively impact the neighborhood. The intent of the code is to keep the rural expanse unimpeded. Donahue seconded. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: None Other Business Barnes mentioned he'd been receiving calls from other cities regarding the specific conditions applied to the granting of Case 2537 heard Janaury 12, 2006 (Camp Bow Wow at 4103 S. Mason.) What conditions were required to move from being a completely enclosed soundproof building? Barnes mentioned RSVPs were needed by the City Clerk's office by next Friday (February 17) for Board & Commission members wishing to attend training on Wednesday, February 22, 4:30-7:30 PM n the CIC and Wednesday, March 1, 1-4 PM in the 215 N. Mason Community Room. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM. wigliYHall, Chairperson Agz-, &A_� Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator