Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/12/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — July 12, 2007 8:30 a.m. 1Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 hairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 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 Carrie Daggett, Assistant City Attorney II 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 June 14, 2007 meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio Abstain: Dickson, Pisula Nays: 3. APPEAL NO. 2580 — Approved with Condition Address: 2651 Ashland Lane Petitioner: Mark Foster Zone: LMN Section: 3.52(D)(2) Background: The variance will reduce the required street side setback along Ballard Lane from 15' to 14'. The variance is for a new home under construction on this corner lot. ZBA July 12, 2007— Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot was originally platted with a width of 59'. The owner adjusted the lot lines on numerous corner lots by adding 1' of width (taken from the abutting lot) in order to create 60' wide lots. The extra lot width is needed in order to accommodate the owner's house models and the need to comply with the 15' side setback required on corner lots. The foundation company staked out the lot for the house by mistakenly using the original property pins, thereby not accounting for the extra 1' of lot width. Since this resulted in the foundation being poured based on the wrong property pin location, the side setback is short by 1'. Staff Comments: Installing trees and foundation plantings along the north side of the building could mitigate this 1 foot encroachment. Therefore, if the Board considers granting the variance, a landscape condition would be appropriate, and might satisfy the "equal to..." standard. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property, in northeast Fort Collins, is on a corner lot that was originally platted with a 59 feet lot width. Because all corner lots are required to have a 15 foot side yard setback, one foot was taken from the abutting lot to meet the requirement and to provide the space needed for the model designated for that lot. Replat stakes were added to those already there from the original survey. The builder noticed the encroachment mistake at the completion of the concrete contractor's foundation work. They immediately and voluntarily stopped work. The work has been on hold for four weeks as they awaited consideration of a setback variance. The discrepancy is most noticeable when looking down the street. The property's foundation juts out by one foot. There is a parkway on the street in which the builder offered to add an extra tree (making a total of three) to mitigate the error. McBride asked if a 15 foot setback is required on both sides on a corner lot. Barnes replied that is correct. Participation: Larry Buckingdorf remarked that there were six lots in Maple Hill that were platted with 59 foot lot widths. They did not realize that was the case when they acquired the subdivision in 2006. Upon discovery of that discrepancy, they reconfigured those lots taking one foot from abutting parcels. Original survey pins (which cannot be removed) were left and the replat pins added. The concrete contractor relied on the original pins when pouring the foundation. They are still the owner of the homes within 100 feet of the 2651 Ashland Lane property. They will notify future home owners of the discrepancy. Also, he believes the one foot encroachment was inconsequential, can be mitigated with trees, is hard to perceive due to the placement of a street light, and would create a significant hardship to tear out the foundation. He asked the Board to consider granting a variance. Dickson asked for clarification —would the trees be placed on the parkway on the other side of the sidewalk. Yes. Dickson asked if the driveway would need to be reduced to accommodate the additional tree. Barnes replied the home will have a front loaded garage on Ashland. The side yard and the encroachment are on Ballard. ZBA July 12, 2007— Page 3 Hall asked why the sidewalk was offset from the street. Barnes replied that the parkway and sidewalk are a Land Use Code Standard and a street design standard. Board Discussion: Hall asked how the problem would have been addressed had it not been an honest mistake. Assistant City Attorney Daggett said the Land Use Code provides for enforcement. Barnes said the Board can address this issue with a request for a side yard setback variance. Further, you don't find lot line adjustments often and the unusual situation where you'd have two pins in the ground. Pisula asked if single family homes need to submit landscape plans. Barnes noted that if there is a condition for approving this variance, the landscape plan would be submitted prior to the issuance of the CO (Certificate of Occupancy.) Otherwise, landscape plans are nor required for single family homes. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2580 because 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. It is evident the one foot encroachment was an honest mistake due to conditions on the site. The approval is conditioned on the builder mitigating the encroachment on the north side with additional landscaping. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2581 —Approved Address: 1113 W. Drake Road Petitioner: Hossein Taraghi Zone: NC Section: 3.8.7(A)(3)(b)(5) Background: The variance will allow an existing nonconforming Western Gas ground sign to remain until January 19, 2009 without being brought into compliance immediately, as required by a recent change of tenancy of the building. Specifically, the 1994 sign code amendments resulted in this ground sign becoming a nonconforming sign (too tall and too large for the setback). The code requires nonconforming signs to be brought into compliance by January 2009 or sooner if the property comes under new tenancy. The sign was originally a Diamond Shamrock sign, but the tenancy has changed to Western Gas. The applicant is requesting permission to allow the existing sign to remain until January 2009. At the existing setback, the sign will have to be lowered from 14 feet to 7 feet and reduced in size from 48 to 45 square feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Western Gas has added E85 as an additional grade of gas which results in the need for additional square footage on the sign. Other gas competitors still have nonconforming signs that can remain until 2009, and Western Gas would like to have the ability to keep the existing sign for as long as other competitors are allowed. January 2009 is only a year and a half away, and the square footage of the sign is only 3 square feet too large for the existing setback, so the request is nominal and inconsequential. ZBA July 12, 2007—Page 4 Staff Comments: Since there are other nonconforming signs in close proximity to this property and since it's unlikely those signs will be changed prior to 2009, granting this variance for the time requested will be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Western Gas is in the Cimarron Shopping Center at Drake & Shields. For the sign to comply it would need to be lowered seven feet and reduced in size by 3 square feet. Other non -conforming signs exist in the area, including a sign at Drake & Shields and a sign at an entrance to the north of Western Gas. Conforming signs can be found in the same area in the NE quadrant of the intersection of Drake & Shields. Donahue asked if the 48 square feet was total sign size. Barnes replied no that was per side. Miscio asked if the deadline and requirements for the 1994 sign code amendment were the same all over Fort Collins. Barnes replied yes. In 1994 City Council allowed for a 15 year amortization which ends January 2009. At that time all signs would need to be in compliance. Applicant Participation: Eric Bethy, Hossein Taraghi's attorney, explained there was a change in tenancy in March 2007. The Western Gas store is Taraghi's first in Fort Collins. Targhi wants to create a unique market offering E85 fuel —one supported by the environmental community, including Governor Ritter's office and CSU. In fact, a Coloradoan article was published the weekend of July 7/8, 2007 outlining how a distribution infrastructure was under way, including the Western Gas store in Fort Collins. Taraghi is in a unique position as an independent. As one of only two stations in Colorado (the other in Denver,) he can be more responsive to market needs. He asks the Board to consider granting a variance. Since there are other nonconforming signs in close proximity to this property and since it's unlikely those signs will be changed prior to 2009, granting this variance for the time requested will be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Miscio asked when he first learned that his sign was not in compliance. He had not known of the requirement when he took over the gas station in March 2007. (Shortly after moving in he got a sign violation citation.) He'd already made arrangements to get a sign for Western Gas that included the Western Gas logo and had a place for an E85 notation. When he went to pull a permit for the sign, he became aware of the differences of a conforming to a nonconforming sign. Hall noted while the shift made with the 1994 sign code amendment is good and he would not want to do anything that would suggest it was not, eighteen months to compliance is not a hugh amount of time. (The applicant understands and fully expects to meet requirements in the 18 month timeframe.) Pisula agreed especially since it would not change the character of the neighborhood. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2581 because 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. The conditions that warrant a variance are: sign is only 3 square feet larger than what will be allowed when it is required to comply, and it is only 18 months before January 2009 when the sign will need to come into compliance with 1994 Sign Code requirements. Hall seconded the motion. ZBA July 12, 2007— Page 5 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: APPEAL NO. 2582 — Approved Address: 530 Sycamore Street Petitioner: Ted Shepard Zone: LMN Section: 43.5.2(D)(2) Member Dickson abstained from participating and voting on the above appeal due to a conflict of interest. She left the dais for the period the appeal was discussed and a decision made on whether to grant a variance. Background: The variance request will reduce the required street side setback along Whitcomb Street from 15 feet to 3 feet in order to allow the existing home to be demolished and a new home constructed on the lot. The existing home is 7 feet from the street side lot line along Whitcomb. The new home, with a 3 foot setback, will be 25 feet from the curb along Whitcomb. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The owner would like to demolish the existing home which is in the LMN zone and construct a new home preserving the linden and spruce trees. Along with five letters of support, the applicant submitted five pages of architectural drawings and additional pages excerpted from the Land Use Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards in order to illustrate the unusual situation with respect to this property and the LMN zone. Hall asked when the tear down is complete would it trigger any requirement relative to a sidewalk upgrade. Applicant responded that would be up to the Engineering Department. He did, however, take advantage of a 50/50 plan in 1981 or 1982 in which sidewalks, including those needing repairs or upgrades would be installed with the property owner paying half the costs and the City paying half the costs. Applicant Participation: Ted Shepard reported that he and his wife have owned the property since 1980. They'd like to maintain the character of the neighborhood and believe they can do that with the proposed placement of the newly constructed home. Their home is in the LMN zone. He stated justification for a variance would be different than the Maple Hill neighborhood (the case previously considered) or any other new LMN neighborhood. In this area of town, the rights of way are very wide (90 feet in fact.) That plus the facts that there is very little traffic, that the street dead ends at the end of the block, and shifting the house closer to the west property line (resulting in only being six inches off the average 25.5 foot standard of the Land Use Code;) make it a unique and justifiable variance request. ZBA July 12, 2007— Page 6 Dennis Sovik, designer for the Shepard's, has been designing houses in old town for 30 years. The proposed home is similar to homes found in the Martinez Park neighborhood —in that case they are primarily built on 50 foot wide lots. The houses are close together and use cantilevers and other protrusions for architectural interest and home enhancements. They are built in proportion to work with the streetscape. In this neighborhood, the homes are mostly ranch style. That's why this home was designed as a ranch with a garden level basement and with consideration for compatible streetscape. Board Discussion: Miscio asked in meeting code, if it should be measured from the property line or from the street. Hall asked what the setback should be in the LMN zone. Barnes responded in the NCL, NCM and NCB zones that setback would be 15 feet. Because the applicant is in LMN, you would look to the standards for LMN and the general purpose of the LMN standards. The proposed street side setback meets the LMN standards except for six inches. Miscio believed a nominal and inconsequential justification would work in this instance. He also thinks the proposed home is in character with the neighborhood, meets the intent of the LMN street setback standard, is supported by neighbors, and is an upgrade to the neighborhood. Hall thinks the proposal works because it's a corner side yard issue and the number of other houses to which this particular situation would apply is extremely limited. Donahue noted its uniqueness is: the intent of the code with relation to the LMN zone, the width of the street, and the buffer from the street Assistant City Attorney Daggett noted from a legal perspective if the Board uses the specifics of this particular case and capitalize on its unique aspects when considering and approving a variance it would be justifiable. She advised the Board to use language that distinguishes it from others. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2582 because 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. Approval is recommended because it meets the intent of the code and deviates only 6 inches from the 25.5 feet required by code standards for the LMN Zone. In addition to being nominal and inconsequential, the proposal will also promote the general purposes 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. The reason the proposal promotes the general purpose for the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies because the proposed home is in character with the neighborhood, meets the intent of the code with a 90 foot side street, is supported by neighbors, and is an upgrade to the neighborhood. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Abstain: Dickson 6. APPEAL NO. 2583 — Approved Address: 627 E. Plum Street Petitioner: Carla Starck Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(3) and (4) ZBA July 12, 2007— Page 7 Background: The variance request is to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 1 foot and to reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet in order to allow a new one car, detached garage to be constructed on the rear portion of the lot. While the new garage will be detached from the house, the proposal is to attach it to the existing garage on the neighbor's property at 623 E. Plum. The 0 foot setback on the side lot line is the result of attaching the two garages. The rear wall of the new garage will line up with the rear wall of the existing garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The petitioner's lot is quite shallow and there is no place that a detached garage can be constructed without the need for a rear setback variance. Because of the location of the existing home on the lot, it would also be very difficult to construct a garage without the need for a side setback variance. Since the side setback variance results in attaching the new garage to an already existing garage that has a nonconforming side setback, the request is also nominal and inconsequential. Staff Comments: Shallowness of a lot is a specifically listed condition that can be taken into account when considering a hardship variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The home, located near the intersection of Stover & Plum, is built on a shallow lot. The variance request is to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 1 foot and to reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet in order to allow a new detached garage to be constructed on the rear portion of the lot. The proposed new 1 bay garage will be added to the existing 1 bay garage on the neighbors lot and will result in one, 2-car garage. A shed that is currently at 627 E. Plum will be removed. Access to the garage will be via a shared, wider driveway that straddles both properties. Hall asked if this upgrade would trigger any compliance issues for the neighbor. Barnes responded no --that portion of the neighbor's original garage would remain except for the tie-in (an extra stall for Starck.) The applicant has spoken to Building Services staff and is aware of building code requirements. Additionally, they will execute deeds of easement. Applicant Participation: Carla Starck, noted she's owned the property since 1994 but has only lived there the past three years. She wants it to be her long term residence and is ready to put money into the property. When the neighbor at 623 E. Plum approached her with the idea of a combined garage and driveway, it seemed like the perfect solution. In touring the neighborhood she's seen evidence of other homes with shared driveways. Also, the design (cottage style) will be compatible with the neighborhood. All of the affected property owners have agreed to the idea in principal. In fact the neighbor to the rear (where the setback will move from 15 feet to 1 foot) has agreed to collaborate on building a fence to separate the properties. Hall asked for more information about impact to the neighbors to the rear of the property. Starck noted they have a detached garage at the rear part of their lot, which is more substantial in size to her own lot. That structure and trees block any view of current or proposed structures. Those neighbors are pretty busy with the birth of a new child so no arrangements were made for them to speak to the Board. To assuage the board's concern, they did receive an affected property owner letter inviting them to attend, to share their feedback via a letter, or to call Barnes with their concerns. Verbally, they've agreed to repositioning the shared fence. ZBA July 12, 2007— Page 8 McBride wondered how maintenance would take place with only one foot between the garage and the fence. Starck suspected some creative, cooperative solution could be found. Curt Amason, 623 E. Plum, is the neighbor working cooperatively with Starck on the shared garage. Because of a past fire, there is a need to tweek his garage --replacing a whole wall and rebuilding the east side to tie into the new joint garage. They will be using a permeable (eco friendly) driveway to manage heat and drainage. He is in full support of the variance. Board Discussion: Hall believes it's a very clever solution —working collaboratively with the neighbor most affected by the change. Dickson thought it is an efficient way to meet both parties needs and thought it should be done more often. McBride asked if curb cuts would be necessary. Amason said yes — his curb cut will need to be widened by four feet. Hall asked for the intent of the code relative to 15 foot rear lot setback. Barnes replied setback areas are provided to provide space for activities, and open space (reducing density.) In this situation there's a clustering of buildings on three lots of varying size. Starck has the property with the smallest lot. The proposal would enhance her property —providing parking and storage in a compatible architectural design. Board members considered the hardship of a shallow lot. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2583 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of this appeal. The shallowness of the lot and the lack of practical options for siting a garage in this confined area make a shared structure a practical solution. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 7. Other Business: None The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. Dwight all, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator