HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/13/2006FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — April 13, 2006
8:45 a.m.
(Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson IlStaff 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, April 13, 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
Andy Miscio
Jim Pisula
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dana McBride
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support to 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 March 9, 2006 meeting. Pisula seconded
the motion. The motion passed.
3. APPEAL NO. 2543 — Approved with Condition
Address: 900 Province Road
Petitioner: Kevin McDonald
Zone: LMN
Section: 3.5.2(D)(5)
Background.
The variance would allow a detached garage to be 1200 square feet instead of the maximum
allowed size of 800 square feet.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The covenants specifically allow for detached buildings to be up to 1200 square feet in size. There
are already numerous detached buildings of this size in the subdivision, so the proposal is
compatible with the existing neighborhood. The covenants also prohibit anything from being stored
outside of a building. The intent of the code is to limit the size of detached buildings on normal
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 2
sized urban lots (about 8000 square feet in size). This lot is one acre, so the intent of the code to
limit the ratio of detached building size to lot size is met.
Staff Comments:
The Board has granted similar variances for similar buildings on lots of this size. The ratio of
building to lot is equal to or better than an 800 square foot building on a normal size lot.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The petition is seeking a variance to build a 1200
square foot detached building. The neighbor (next door at 903 Province Road) has a detached
building similar in size and design to what they anticipate building. Barnes noted in the past the
Board has approved a like request with a condition that the property could not be subdivided.
Applicant Participation:
Kevin McDonald is currently a resident of 515 Valley View in Loveland. He is considering the
purchase of the lot at 900 Province Road but before finalizing the purchase, he wants to know if
the Board would grant a variance to build a detached 1200 square foot building —similar to others
in that subdivision. He's spoken to the neighbors at 903 Province, the neighbor behind the property
and the president of the homeowners association —none have reservations relative to his plan for
the detached building.
Board Discussion:
Hall wondered where the detached building would be placed. McDonald noted it would sit next to
their garage 15 feet from the property line —similar to how his neighbor at 903 Province has sited
their detached building. Miscio noted that Code requirements were designed for 8,000 square feet
lots. With this being on one acre (five times an 8,000 square foot lot,) he considers the variance
nominal and inconsequential and compatible with the neighborhood. The Board wondered if
McDonald would be okay with a condition that the lot not be subdivided. He said that would be
fine.
Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2543 because the granting of the variance would
not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the
standards 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. Specifically, the lot is five times larger and the
structure is only 50% larger than the 800 square foot structure limit on a normal city lot.
Additionally, the structure would be compatible with others in the neighborhood. The variance is
conditioned on the lot not being subdivided in the future. Donohue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula
Nays: None
In addition to the variance request, McDonald asks the Board to consider granting a variance that
would not expire after six months as he needs o sell his current home and finalize the
purchase/construction of the new home and he's not sure that can happen in six months.
Hall made a motion to reconsider the motion given his request for a longer duration on the
variance. Miscio seconded.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula
Nays: None
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 3
Miscio made a motion to amend the previously stated motion to approve appeal number 2543 with
the added provision that the applicant had up to 12 months to obtain the building permit prior to the
variance expiring. Donohue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula
Nays: None
4. APPEAL NO. 2544 — Approved with Condition
Address: 7500 S. Lemay Avenue
Petitioner: Richard Snyder
Zone: LIE
Section: 4.1(B)(1)(a)
Background:
The variance would allow a proposed 4200 square foot attached garage to be considered an
accessory use to the proposed 4950 square foot house. Normally a garage must be clearly
subordinate to the house to be considered accessory. The garage will be a 6 car wide garage,
with added depth. Antique, collectable vehicles will be stored in the building.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The lot is 3.74 acres in size, so it is a very large parcel. This particular zoning district does not
have a size limit for detached accessory buildings. Therefore, the proposed attached garage
satisfies the intent of the code equally well as would a couple of 2100 square foot detached
buildings.
Staff Comments:
Since this particular zone specifically allows for detached accessory buildings to be 2500 square
feet or larger, this sized garage would be permitted if it was detached from the house. The
proposed garage is attached to the house by only a small room. The owner could remove the
room attachment and thereby make the garage a detached building, and a variance would no
longer be required. This could be considered a situation where the proposed attached garage
satisfies the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a proposal that complies. Given
the unusually large size of the lot, this might also be nominal and inconsequential when considered
in the context of the neighborhood, wherein all the lots are very large.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. UE does not have a size limit for detached
accessory buildings. Because the 4200 square foot garage will be attached to a 4900 square foot
home a variance is needed.
Hall wondered what the process was for structures greater than 2500 square feet in this zone.
Barnes noted that review for structures that size would go to Planning & Zoning Board. Hall also
asked what would prevent them from converting such a large combined structure to a business?
Barnes reviewed requirements related to Home Occupation Licensing and noted the business
should not exceed 50% of the structure and in this case it wouldn't.
Applicant Participation:
Richard Snyder, who currently lives at 2808 Cattail Bay in Windsor, will be building the
home/garage at 7500 S. Lemay (Lemay & Carpenter.) He's a collector of antique vehicles and
currently has ten vehicles. His first preference is to have the garage attached.
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 4
Board Discussion:
The Board wondered about placing a condition on the variance about not subdividing. Miscio had
reservations about that condition because this parcel is 3.74 times larger than the previous case.
When asked, Snyder would have a problem with that condition. Due to floodplains, there are
already restrictions on the north and east side of the property. Additionally, given the proposed
placement of the home/garage to maximize the view to the west, there is only one viable option for
subdividing --at the corner. Also, he would not want to inhibit options later for his children or
grandchildren.
Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2544 because the granting of the variance would
not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the
standards 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. Specifically, the lot is ample in size and the plan would have no impact on the
neighborhood. The variance is conditioned on the structure being located as represented on the
site plan. Pisula seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Miscio, Pisula
Nays: Donahue
NOTE: ZBA Member Pisula left the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
5. APPEAL NO. 2545 — Approved with Condition
Address: 2002 Battlecreek Drive
Petitioner: Countryside Asset Mgmt. Corp.
Zone: LMN
Section: 3.8.7(C) (1)(f)
Background:
The variance would allow The Argyle Apartments development to have a sign that is not located at
an entrance into the development. Specifically, the variance would allow an identification sign to
be constructed within the development, at the northwest corner of Timberline and Battlecreek. The
sign is proposed to be approximately 30 square feet in size and will be located 75 feet from
Timberline and 58 feet from Battlecreek in an existing landscaped area. This sign will take the
place of the one that is allowed to be constructed at the entrance off of Wilmington Drive.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Most of the traffic passing the project is along Timberline Road. It is important to have signage
along Timberline for emergency vehicles as well as to adequately sign the development to aid
visitors in finding the property. If the development had an entrance on Timberline, a variance
would not be required. Since numerous other development signs are located along Timberline in
the immediate vicinity, the proposed sign would be inconsequential when considered in the context
of the neighborhood.
Staff Comments:
None,
Staff Presentation:
Barnes read into the record a letter opposed to the variance from Greg Bruny, 1730 Tanglewood
Drive and presented slides relevant to this appeal. A variance is required because identifying
signs are normally only allowed at entrances. The Argyle Apartment entrances are at Battlecreek
and Wilmington and those entrances do not offer the best visual lead for visitors or emergency
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 5
vehicle personnel. The applicants want to construct an identifying sign in the best location that
would improve that situation. The sign would be constructed of stone and would be placed in a
landscaped area along Timberline.
Hall asked what the Code was trying to restrict by limiting signs to entrances. Barnes said the
Code wants to avoid the proliferation of signs. The Code allows signs to identify but limits the
number of signs.
Applicant Participation:
Gary Pahler, Manager of the Argyle Apartments spoke first to the letter of opposition from Mr.
Bruny. The current owners have owned the complex less than one year so they are not aware of
the original request from Mr. Bruny. They will make every attempt to make contact and if it's
reasonable to honor his request for a fence, they will (it's important for them to be good neighbors.)
The sign would improve the life and safety with improved visibility for emergency vehicles,
prospective residents and their guests. The landscape will be reworked where the sign would be
located and emphasize the corner as a part of the apartment complex. Barnes reminded them that
a proposed landscape plan needs to be reviewed by the City prior to construction to insure
conformance with City Code. That is done by filing a minor amendment with the City's Zoning
Office.
Board Discussion:
Dickson thinks they have a reasonable request and would like to have a stipulation the complex be
limited to two signs —one at Battlecreek and substitute the one allowed (but not constructed) at the
Wilmington entrance for the sign proposed along Timberline. Miscio agrees it's unobtrusive and
would make life easier for visitors.
Dickson made a motion to approve case number 2545 for the following reasons: the granting of
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
since the signs for the complex would be limited to the two allowed —one on Battlecreek and the
other along Timberline, instead of along Wilmington. The Board expects the final product to
reasonably resemble the design presented to the Board. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio
Nays: None
6. APPEAL NO. 2546 — Approved with Condition
Address: 252 E. Mountain Avenue
Petitioner: Don Bundy
Zone: D
Section: 4.12(D)(2)
Background:
The variance would increase the maximum allowed Floor Area to Lot Area Ratio from 2 to 1 to
3.12 to 1 in order to allow the construction of a 4-story, 22, 750 square foot building on a 5,660
square foot lot. 17,650 square feet of the building is above ground. The ground level of the
building will be retail and/or restaurant. The remainder of the building will be offices.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 6
See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments:
Staff supports a variance to the 2.0 FAR requirement for a number of reasons.
First of all, there is a relevant point of background context regarding the standard for FAR: staff
has drafted a recommended Code change regarding building height standards in the Downtown
zone district, which eliminates the FAR requirement among other changes. The recommended
change was drafted and discussed in a public process, and there has been no defense of FAR as
a development standard. In the recommended Code changes, other aspects of the height
standard are much more relevant and useful, and would remain as they are for the Old City Center
(4 stories, 56 feet, 4th floor set back.) However, the fact remains that hearings on that Code
change are pending, so the current Code must be used and the FAR standard must be addressed
in the current variance request to the ZBA.
Variance Request:
"As Good or Better." First staff finds the proposed plan to be as good or better than alternative
plans meeting the standard.
One alternative plan meeting the standard would be to build exactly as proposed, but use the third
and fourth story portions for residential rather than office use. This would shift office uses to the
ground floor, and ground floor retail uses being displaced from the plan. Staff finds no additional
benefit which would result from such a plan; and no detriment resulting from the plan as proposed.
Residential use would be fine; but ground floor retail/commercial uses are also fine, and in fact are
specifically encouraged in policies for the retail core in City Plan and the Downtown Strategic Plan.
Another alternative plan meeting the standard would be to simply eliminate the proposed third and
partial fourth stories. In this case, this would simply eliminate ground floor retail use from project
and office use would occupy the entire building, which would be 2 stories. Staff finds no additional
benefit which would result from a 2-story office plan, in fact such a plan would stray farther from
policies for the Old City Center.
Staff acknowledges the question whether the plan is as good or better in meeting the purpose of
the FAR standard, which is not stated but presumably is to add incentive for residential
development. However the purpose is not explained anywhere and is. not clear because FAR is no
incentive if a developer has no desire to add residential use. Residential use invokes a whole set
of issues (e.g., parking requirements, separate utility services, more building code requirements,
ongoing maintenance and management issues). A developer with no desire to add residential use
is not encouraged to do so by simply being allowed to do so. This is part of the reason staff is
proposing to eliminate the standard in a separate process.
"Community Need." Staff also finds that the plan as proposed substantially addresses an
important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the Comprehensive
Plan and adopted policy; and the strict application of the standard would render the project
practically infeasible. The need: to maintain and enhance the retail core of downtown with active
ground floor uses, starting with retail. Strict application of the standard would render the project
practically infeasible as proposed with ground floor retail.
This need is specified in City Plan as exemplified by the following policies:
"Old City Center Sub -District
Policy DD-1.3 Retail. The "Old City Center" will continue to be the primary specialty retailing
concentration in the Downtown and will include a diverse mix of small- and medium- size retail
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 7
uses. Retail will also be featured within the Civic Center area as identified in the Civic Center
Master Plan (1996). The Downtown will also continue to attract other conventional retail
businesses which meet the needs of adjacent residential neighborhoods and the community.
Ground -level retail uses will be encouraged.
Policy DD-1.6 Other Uses. Fine dining, entertainment, and cultural activities, which provide a
unique destination for employees, students and visitors will be encouraged. Offices that have a
high level of walk-in clientele, such as insurance brokers, travel agencies, and uses of similar
character, should be allowed on the ground level, but will be secondary to retail. Upper -story space
should accommodate offices and residential uses."
In addition, City Plan policies are reinforced by the adopted Downtown Strategic Plan, which has a
pervasive theme of strengthen the retail core of downtown, focusing retail there, and specifically
pursuing active ground floor uses.
"Nominal and Inconsequential." Staff also finds that the plan as proposed can be considered a
nominal and inconsequential deviation from the FAR standard when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan, given the following considerations:
• the building falls within the overall height limit;
• the building mass could not be reduced by reducing the footprint, because of required zero
setbacks (the plan provides a high quality building brought up along the street sidewalks as
envisioned for this sub -district);
• the building's site coverage and 3 floors are consistent with other buildings found in the
sub -district.
Overall Conclusion. The proposed building fits well with a whole body of policy and regulation
downtown, with the exception of the obscure FAR standard which is being recommended for
elimination because it is not an effective way to implement policies for larger downtown buildings.
It would be a loss for all concerned if the FAR standard resulted in either: 1) elimination of the 3rd
and partial 4th story; 2) elimination of the ground floor retail use; or 3) withdrawal of the
development application. It is apparent that the standard will not in any case result in residential
use being added.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal.
Applicant Participation:
Don Bundy, an architect representing the owners of Otter Products, noted the building will house
the administrative office for 40 Otter Products employees on the 2"d 3rd and 4th floors. The property
is not in the historic district but immediately adjacent to it. They believe: the proposed building is
equal to or better than others in the Old City Center Sub -District, it will fit well within the scale and
character of the surrounding area, and the architectural character of the design fits well with that of
the Old City Center. The applicant is anxious to continue his business's contribution to downtown
and believes the proposed building will be an exemplary part of Old Town. He asked that the
Board consider allowing a twelve month period before expiration of the variance given the
complexity of the project and the time to construct.
Board Discussion:
There was considerable Board discussion.
Hall thought the project was well thought out and the arguments in favor very sound. Also it meets
the equal to or better than justification and accomplishes the intent of the Code. Barnes wondered
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 8
if the Board wanted to consider approving it with the condition the 1'` floor be "retail" or "other' as
described in City Plan Policy DD-1.3 and DD-1.6.
Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2546. 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 standards. The purpose of the Code and City Plan is to
encourage commercial activity on the first floor and to avoid a situation where the store front does
not promoted a vibrant retail district. It's important to place a condition to accomplish the intent of
the code for the first floor as referenced in City Plan City Plan Policy DD-1.3 and DD-1—high
customer traffic uses. Additionally the variance is extended to twelve months before expiring.
Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio
Nays: None
7. APPEAL NO.
2547 — Denied
Address:
629 Smith Street
Petitioner:
Robert Stewart
Zone:
NCM
Section:
3.8.11
Background:
The variance would allow the maximum height of a privacy fence to be increased from 6' to 7 Y2
feet to allow the existing fence to be replaced with a 6' tall fence with a decorative top that adds an
additional 1 Y2 feet to the height.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The owner would like to build a 7'6" fence. There is an alley behind the house that is in disarray
and the owner feels that adding the decorative addition will increase the aesthetics along the alley.
Staff Comments:
If the owner constructs the rear portion of the fence at the required 5' building setback, then no
variance would be needed for that portion of the fence and he could have his taller fence to screen
the alley. The side portions could also be setback 5' at the proposed height without the need for a
variance. If the applicant wants a fence with the decorative top, then another option if he wants it
along the lot lines is to construct the privacy portion at a 4.5' height and then add the 1.5' tall
decorative element to the top.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property owner proposes replacing a chain
link fence along the alley and along his side yard with a 6 foot fence with a 1 '/z foot oriental
themed decorative addition. Additionally, new fence will be added as shown in blue on the site
plan. Hall wondered what the intent of the Code was related to the 6 feet limit Barnes said the
Code allows up to six feet so long as it has the proper set back. A taller fence could affect
neighboring properties' light, air, etc.
Applicant Participation:
Stewart is interested in creating critical mass to improve privacy and to improve the neighborhood
overall. He's seen how it's been effective on other properties along the alley and in surrounding
neighborhoods. In particular, he'd like to block eye sores east and north of his home where
renters don't' maintain their property (including storing a number of cars) and views of dumpsters in
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 9
the alley. The decorative addition's design has some openness that will promote the flow of light
and air.
Board Discussion:
Donahue disagreed the addition was very open... calculating a 40% mass. Hall had reservations
that on one section there would be a hundred and twenty foot run. The Board also had
reservations about setting precedence (wanting to stay away from being the "aesthetics police" on
designed additions above six feet) and thinking six feet would address the need for privacy. The
Board agreed there was no hardship other than one that is self-imposed and it would not meet the
equal to or better than or nominal and inconsequential justification criteria.
Miscio made a motion to deny appeal number 2547 for the following reasons: the granting of the
variance would be detrimental to the public good, the applicant has not satisfied the criteria
necessary to justify a hardship variance, the applicant has not shown 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 especially as relates to light and air
for adjacent properties. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio
Nays: Daggett
8. APPEAL NO. 2548 — Withdrawn
Address: 3709 Shallow Pond Drive
Petitioner: Brannon Design & Construction
Zone: UE
Section: 4.1(D)(2)(D)
Staff Comments:
The petitioner elected to withdrawn his application for a variance.
9 APPEAL NO. 2549 — Approved with Condition
Address:
1034 W. Oak
Petitioner:
Alice Gibson
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6 D (1)
Background:
The variance would increase the maximum allowed Floor Area to Lot Area Ratio (FAR) from 3 to 1
to 3.33 to 1 in order to allow an existing 10' x 16' detached garage to remain. The garage was to
be removed when the recent addition of the house was permitted as a condition of the approval of
the addition. The applicant agreed to the above condition for that approval.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The homeowner would now like to retain the garage and make cosmetic improvements to it not
increasing it by size. This is the only garage on the property.
Staff Comments:
The owner/building permit applicant agreed to remove the garage otherwise the addition would
have had to have been smaller or a variance would have been needed prior to the issuance of the
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page 10
permit for the addition. Coming to the Board after the fact would probably classify this as a self-
imposed hardship.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property, now for sale, was issued a permit in
November, 2005. At the time that permit was requested, the contractor (Ms. Gibson's son-in-law
acting as her agent) agreed to demolish the existing garage when construction was completed.
That structure has access to the alley and is non -conforming with regards to setbacks.
Applicant Participation:
Gibson is the applicant and owner of the property. The garage is not too big considering the size
of the home. In fact, lots beside hers have larger homes on smaller lots --was that because they
were in existence prior to adoption of the current code? She spoke with her son-in-law who
mentioned he agreed to the condition because without it he would not have gotten a permit to
construct the addition (8 feet back and a second floor.) If she had been present, she would not
have agreed and now it is creating a hardship —not having a garage. At this juncture, she'd like a
variance to keep and improve the existing 10' x 16' garage.
Board Discussion:
Miscio sees the hardship but thinks it's self-imposed. He wondered how much that structure
exceeds the Floor Area to Lot Area Ratio (FAR?) Barnes answered 160 feet --the 2,333 square
feet in the house plus the 160 square feet would raise the FAR to 3.2 (from the standard of 3 to 1.)
Barnes noted that if the Board was inclined to approve the variance the garage would need to
conform to setback requirements of 5 feet from the alley and 5 feet from the side surveyed property
line.
Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2549 because the granting of the variance would
not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the
standards 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. Specifically, the approval is conditioned that the existing garage must be removed
and the new garage can not exceed the existing garage size in footprint or height and needs to be
in compliance with code as relates to setbacks. Donahue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio
Nays: None
10. APPEAL NO.
2550 —Approved
Address:
420 Hawkins Street
Petitioner:
Brian Hoyt
Zone:
NCM
Section:
4.7 D (3), 4.7 E (3), 4.7 F (1)(c )
Background:
The variance would: reduce the rear setback of a proposed 20' x 20' detached garage from 15' to
8', and would allow the front yard setback for the garage to be less than the additional 10' required
beyond the principal building front setback. Specifically, the front setback of the existing house is
16', which would require the proposed garage to be setback 26' from the front lot line instead of the
22' being proposed. The garage is proposed to be located on the north side of the existing home.
ZBA April 13, 2006 - Page I I
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Due to both the original house placement as well as the 50' property depth, this could qualify as a
hardship based on the shallowness of the lot.
Staff Comments:
The shallowness of the lot (50') makes it impossible to construct an attached or detached garage
that would comply with both the front and rear setback requirements.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The home is on a shallow lot ... the narrow portion
is on Sycamore and the wider portion (and the front of the home) is on Hawkins. The variance
would reduce the rear setback of a proposed 20' x 20' detached garage from 15' to 8% and would
allow the front yard setback for the garage to be less than the additional 10' required beyond the
principal building front setback. Specifically, the front setback of the existing house is 16', which
would require the proposed garage to be setback 26' from the front lot line instead of the 22' being
proposed.
Applicant Participation:
Brian Hoyt mentioned he's trying to make the best of the situation —where improvements can be
made with what he has to work with. He's made the decision to go with a 20' x 20' garage as
opposed to the standard 20' x 24' model. He's opting to place it closer to the home —considering
preserving a large tree on the lot. Hall asked how high the garage would be. Hoyt noted it will not
exceed 18 feet. —the height limit.
Board Discussion:
The Board believes a hardship exists due to the orientation of the front lot line and the shallowness
of the lot. The Board liked the lower profile of the garage design shown on the plans. Also, they
believed if the home had it's orientation on Sycamore, the proposed placement would not have
been a problem.
Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2550 for the following reasons: the granting of
the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical or
unique conditions such as the shallowness of the lot and the orientation of the house at the rear of
the lot make it unique. The property owner will comply with the 20 foot long driveway to garage
door and the garage will have a low profile compatible to the home. The garage must be
constructed per the design submitted. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio
Nays: None
11. Other Business: None
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
_.. / �y..Y. "�"`'-'i✓r _ it -EEC' / J a`- 4--
Dwight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator