Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/12/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — April 12, 2007 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support to the Board 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 March 8, 2007 meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Miscio Abstain: Donahue Nays: 3. APPEAL NO. 2571 —Approved Address: 1379 Front Nine Drive Petitioner: Jeanne Sanders Zone: RL Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c ) Background: The variance will reduce the required rear yard setback from 8' to 6' in order to allow the construction of an 11' x 17' sunroom addition on the west side of the home. The existing fence will remain as is. ZBA April 12, 2007— Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot abuts an open space to the rear of the property, and another street is located on the other side of the open space. Therefore, there are no other homes that back up to this particular lot. As a result, the intent of the code is met and there is no detrimental impact to the public good. Staff Comments: Since the rear lot line abuts an open space, and then a street on the other side of the open space rather than other houses, the intent of the Code is met. The impact of a variance to allow a 6' rear setback in this type of situation is no greater than another situation where a variance is not required when a building complies with the setback and the rear lot line abuts another residential lot instead of open space. This is a finding that the Board has stated in the past for similar situations. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal and referred the Board to the site plan and building plans submitted. Applicant Participation: Jeanne Sanders, 1379 Front Nine Drive, stated the variance is needed given the placement of the addition. The back side of the home juts out slightly so to get a room with useful space, they need to go out two feet into the area where a setback would be required. Donahue asked if the structure would encroach on utility easements. No —the utility easements are at six feet and the new setback will be at 8 feet. Board Discussion: McBride had some questions about the staff comment: "The impact of a variance to allow a 6' rear setback in this type of situation is no greater than another situation where a variance is not required when a building complies with the setback and the rear lot line abuts another residential lot instead of open space." Barnes responded that with a six foot setback that abuts open space the impact is no greater than a normal lot with a 15 foot setback requirement and a property immediately behind it. Construction is allowed within 15 feet without a variance --it keeps with the intent of the code. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2571 because 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. Specifically, the open space and the street behind it present a feeling of openness. Also no neighbor is directly affected. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2572 — Approved with Condition Address: 802 Colorado Street Petitioner: Richard Gareis Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(4) ZBA April 12, 2007—Page 3 Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5' to 1' in order to allow the construction of a new 12' x 20' storage shed. The north wall of the shed will line up with the existing north wall of the detached garage, and will be located in the back yard, about 5' east of the existing garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The applicant believes that this proposal, one smaller sheds which wouldn't require permits i petitioner's letter for additional explanation. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: storage building, is preferable to constructing 2 r need to comply with setback standards. See Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property has alley access with a side loaded garage. The proposed addition —a storage shed would line up with the north side of the garage — one foot from the lot line. Dickson asked if it complied with floor to lot area ratio (FLAR) requirements for this zone. Barnes reported the home is not very large and any calculation falls well within the 2:1 ratio. The Board asked questions related to the proposed structure and its need for a variance as opposed to other options that would not need a variance. Barnes reported if Gareis wanted to construct two 120 square foot buildings with a height of 8 feet he could build one foot from the lot line since sheds of that size are not regulated. Applicant Participation: Richard Gareis, 801 Colorado Street, has resided in the home for 27 years. He'd like to construct the storage shed along that same alignment as the garage, which has been one foot from the lot for some time. The shed will be shorter in height and would not be visible from either the alley or the street. He could legally construct two buildings but it would cost 20% more. He believes one building is more aesthetically pleasing and a better addition to the land. He had also eliminated the possibility of adding a cost prohibitive third bay to the garage. The Board determined the reason he did not want to bring the structure out from the property line was that he did not want to block the one pedestrian entry door into the garage. They also determined he wanted to stay pretty close to the proposed 12' x 20' dimensions but was open to keeping the height at 8 feet. Board Discussion: McBride wondered if he considered building on slab to manage the height of the structure. The plans gave the impression it would be above 8 feet-10 feet at the peak, in fact. Miscio wondered how close the affected neighbor's home was from the proposed structure. Gareis calculated about 35 feet as their home is not directly behind the garage/proposed shed but further away from the garages and closer to the street. The Board had trouble finding justification for a variance believing the problems were self-imposed. They thought the building could be moved away from the lot line by 5 feet or it could be shortened to allow access to the garage. Gareis asked for a vote on the proposal as submitted. ZBA April 12, 2007— Page 4 McBride made a motion to not approve appeal number 2572 because the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public good and because the Board was unable to find hardship, equal to or better than, or nominal and inconsequential justification for the variance. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio Nays: Daggett, Pisula Deputy City Attorney Eckman recommended while the applicant had requested the Board vote on the submittal as submitted, he would consider conditions such as limiting the height of the structure to 8 feet. The options for the Board at this juncture (should they want to approve with conditions) were to rescind the motion or for the prevailing side to reopen. Pisula made a motion to rescind the motion/vote. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: Dickson, Miscio Pisula made a motion to approve appeal number 2572 because 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. Specifically, it would be better to build one structure versus two one foot from the property line which would have been allowed by Code. The variance would be granted with the condition that the roof line be lowered to 8 feet from the proposed 10 feet. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Dickson, Donahue 5. APPEAL NO. 2573 — Approved Address: 924 Sycamore Street Petitioner: Carl Nassar & James Connell Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(2) and (4) Background: The variance will reduce the required front yard setback along Sycamore Street from 15 feet to 12.1 feet and reduce the required street side setback along Park Street from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow the construction of a sunroom addition. The addition will act as a solar collector and will be 5 feet closer to the front lot line than the existing home is and will line up with the existing wall along Park Street, which is already at a 10 foot setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: In order to capture the morning sun, it is necessary to have an eastern exposure. To accomplish this, it is necessary for the addition to protrude slightly past the existing front wall of the house. This can only be accomplished with a setback variance. In order to allow for an adequate size solar collector to heat the home, the addition will line up with the existing west wall of the home ZBA April 12, 2007— Page 5 along Park Street. The west wall will still be 34 feet from the street and the front wall will be 24.3' from the street, so the intent of the setback requirement is met. Staff Comments: The setbacks of the addition from the 2 streets are quite large, The Board has determined in the past that the extra "parkway" width in the right-of-way abutting corner lots can be a factor in allowing reduced setbacks or increased building floor area. The standards in the Code for approving variances include a special provision relating to solar energy systems. Specifically, a hardship may be found if compliance with the standards hinders the ability to install a solar energy system. In this particular application, the applicant has stated that it is important to capture morning sun so that the collector can function as desired, and therefore it is necessary to extend the addition beyond the front of the home. Staff believes that granting the setback variance would not be detrimental to the public good because of the large setback from the street, and that approval would remove a hindrance to the owner's ability to install a functional solar energy system. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The home is situated on a corner lot at Park and Sycamore Streets and a good distance from the street. The proposed structure would create a sun room and "fill in" a corner of the house squaring the original home with an addition. Barnes reported the Land Use Code encourages solar energy systems and authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider variances on hardship if strict compliance hinders an owner's ability to add solar energy systems. By definition the system relies on sunshine and must be able to collect, store and distribute energy. Hall noted there is no sidewalk along Park and wondered where the lot line was in that situation. Barnes noted where no sidewalk exists, it's considered City right-of-way such as parkway. Applicant Participation: The homeowner, Carl Nassar (with Solar Energy Design & Installation Consultant James Connell) explained he and is wife are very committed to conservation and renewal resources. Their latest home improvement effort will move them toward being more energy efficient with the installation of a passive solar system. The system collects the sun, stores it in the sunroom in solar sinks and windows' foam insulation, than distributes it to the rest of the house through open windows and doors (possibly a blower.) The will vent excess via a solar powered vent. Connell explained there are formulas for calculating storage or space of greenhouse and what you are trying to heat. He will assist in making sure the system is functional. Board Discussion: The Board believe with the space along each street frontage, the equal to or better than justification could be used. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2573 because 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. Specifically, with the City owned land, the effective distance from the home to the street is approximately 24 feet. (The intent of the Code is met with the setback.) Also, the addition would be used for a solar system which the Code encourages and there is a hardship with placement to accomplish solar goals. Miscio seconded the motion. ZBA April 12, 2007— Page 6 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 6. APPEAL NO. 2574 — Approved with Condition Address: 829 Laporte Avenue Petitioner: Sara Rich ings-Germaine Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance will reduce the street side setback along Washington from 15' to 10.5' and reduce the side setback along the east lot line from 5' to 4.5' in order to allow the construction of an 11' x 25' covered porch on the rear of the house. The porch cover is proposed to be the same width as the width of the house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The porch cover will break up the blank wall of the rear of the house, and will provide shade over existing windows from the southern exposure. The cover will line up with the existing home, so no further encroachment is proposed. This is a corner lot, so the street side setback will appear to be larger than the 10.5" requested. Staff Comments: The Board granted similar setbacks in November 2005 to allow a 2 story addition on the back of this home. Copies of the minutes of that appeal are included in the Board's packets. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The applicant would like to construct a porch the full width of the rear of their home. The home is on the corner of Laporte and Washington. Hall wondered if with the construction of a porch, if there was a need to consider the floor to lot area ratio (FAR.) Barnes reported that so long as the porch is not enclosed it is not included in the FAR calculation. Applicant Participation: Sara Rich ings-Germain had no additional comments. Board Discussion: Hall believes the variance request to reduce the side setback along the east lot line from 5' to 4.5' qualifies because it is nominal and inconsequential. The variance request to reduce the street side setback along Washington from 15' to 10.5' may be justified with an equal to or better than justification because as corner lot sidewalk and parkway provide a feeling of openness and extra setback. The post that supports the porch is what is creating the encroachment. Is there any way it could be moved. Richings-Germain replied the post needs to be there because otherwise it would be in front of a window and that did not contribute to the aesthetics in that room. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2574 because 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 ZBA April 12, 2007— Page 7 proposal which complies with the standard. Specifically, the street side setback along Washington can be justified because as a corner lot sidewalk and parkway provide a feeling of openness and The variance request to reduce the side setback along the east lot line from 5' to 4.5' is nominal and inconsequential. Further, the encroachment is due to the vertical post 6 inches into the setback. The variances are granted conditioned on the porch not being enclosed. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 7. Other Business: Barnes invited the Board to attend a special work session (in which City Council is seeking Board & Commission feedback on Budgeting for Outcomes for 2008/09.) The session is scheduled for Monday, May 7 from 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. in the Lincoln Center Canyon West Room. Miscio asked the Board what their thoughts were relative to making introductions to the Board prior to hearing the appeals. Specifically, he thought if would be informative for the applicants to know this is a volunteer board and it would create a better personal rapport before starting on the review tasks. Maybe they could talk further about the idea. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Dwight Hall, Chairper *o Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator P