Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/13/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — September 13, 2007 8:30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 IlChairperson: Dwight Hall 11 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 13, 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 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: none 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 August 9, 2007 meeting. Pisula seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 3. APPEAL NO. 2586 — Approved with Condition Address: 420 Wood Street Petitioner: Torrence Van Lear Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(4) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow a 126 square foot, one-story addition to be constructed to the house. The existing south wall of the house is already at a three and one half foot setback, and the addition will line up with the existing wall and fill in the back corner of the home. ZBA September 13, 2007—Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a narrow lot, only 35 feet wide, and the existing home already has a nonconforming setback. The house is small, about 600 square feet, and the proposal is to square off the house by filling in the back corner of the home. The roof is an old shed roof that leaks all the time. The owner is proposing to construct an entirely new roof on the back portion of the home, with new trusses in order to fix the roof problem. Constructing the addition facilitates the new roof. The owner intends to do additional remodeling to improve the appearance of the home but can't proceed until the roof issue is resolved. Staff Comments: The narrowness of the lot and the existing setback could be viewed as a hardship. The location of the one-story addition is the most logical location. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The home is on an interior lot of a horseshoe shaped alley that includes Sycamore with one portion of that alley vacated (closed off) at one time. The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow a 126 square foot, one-story addition to be constructed to the house. The existing south wall of the house is already at a three and one half foot setback, and the addition will line up with the existing wall and fill in the back corner of the home. Applicant's Participation: Torrence Van Lear, 420 Wood, stated that within the past month his neighbor (at 422 Wood) had ordered a land certificate, which showed how his property line (with the recent addition of a fence on the south) had been skewed. He thought his home might be five feet from the property line and a variance may not be required. Van Lear provided a copy of the neighbor's certificate that stated a "further official survey" was recommended. Barnes asked Van Lear if he wanted to proceed based on the record today or if he wanted to table the request until after a full boundary survey was secured? Eckman said the choices were to assume the addition would be too close to the property line and hear the variance today or wait to determine the survey findings and if the building was found to be in compliance not come back before the board. Van Lear decided that because he was already here and the addition was not hugh, (simply squaring off his home) he'd like to go ahead and settle it today. Van Lear explained he had been working to improve his home the past four years (installing a new sewer line, plumbing and electrical) at a time when he was also attending school and working. Now that he's completed his schooling, he's ready to address the problems he's been having with a low -sloping shed roof. He'd like to rip that off and with an addition square off the building, add new trusses, and address the leaking roof. The roof in the front of the home would remain the same. The roof in the back would be gabled. Hall asked how large the addition would be. Van Lear responded 12' x 9'. Louis Cordova, 424 Wood, lives two houses down is in support of the variance. The house had been a rental prior to Van Lear's ownership and the improvements he's made have improved the neighborhood. Henry Harness, 418 Wood, is opposed to the variance based on Van Lear's not finishing what he's started with a previous permit. Harness provided photos for the Board's review. The siding has asbestos and he's left it exposed on the south side. Harness is concerned about the health and safety of his four children. He's built a six-foot fence but he'd like to have that exposure mitigated. He asked that the problem be addressed before any variance is granted. Harness said he ZBA September 13, 2007— Page 3 contacted the City about five or six months ago to register his concern about the extended construction period and the asbestos. Barnes noted that the building permit had been signed off as completed in April, 2007. Dickson noted the problem seems to be near the area where two windows were installed. Van Lear noted he had, in fact, found asbestos in the siding on the south side and in a nine feet portion on the north side of the home. Working with a Larimer County Health & Environment staff person Doug Bijorlo, he learned that so long as he does not disrupt the materials further no eminent danger will occur. He intends to replace those tiles at the time he adds the addition. The process relative to their removal includes getting a State permit, painting the edges, removing and disposing of them safely. His plan is to frame in the addition, remove the asbestos siding, cover and tie with a house wrap and moisture barrier, and put new siding up. He would be willing to paint the problem shingles now to allay the neighbors concerns. Board Discussion Hall noted that the 35 foot wide lot, while not unusual for this neighborhood, is unusually narrow. Barnes noted in the context of the neighborhood, we're talking about a small house. The addition would line up with the existing wall and be the best possible place to add on. Barnes also suggested that a condition might be to mitigate the asbestos prior to issuing the permit. Van Lear agreed to paint the asbestos tiles today and to remove them carefully during construction under the strictest State requirements. He provided the information that home was approximately 18 feet from the Harness home. Dickson recommended if he had any questions about safe removal of asbestos, the information could likely be found on the internet. Van Lear agreed to use it and refresh his memory on the process. Hall agreed the change would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, on a narrow lot, and that it would be a good idea to paint the asbestos tiles prior to construction. The Board agreed he should be allowed to complete and to address the issue of the asbestos. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2586 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 the appeal such as the narrowness of the 35 foot wide lot —the addition would complete the home in a rectangular fashion. Granting the variance is also nominal and inconsequential and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the 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 changes work in the context of the neighborhood —there are several lots with 35 feet wide lots and non -conforming yard setbacks. Also, the addition will continue the line of the existing wall and will not be visible from Wood Street as it is a one- story structure. A condition of approval is the property owner agrees to paint the asbestos siding tiles prior to getting a building permit. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2587 — Denied ZBA September 13, 2007— Page 4 Address: 119 N. Loomis Avenue Petitioner: Andre Mouton Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(5) Background: The variance will allow the construction of a 576 square foot, detached two -car garage on the rear portion of the lot. The proposed garage, combined with 713 square feet of a proposed addition on the back of the existing house, will exceed the allowed floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) on the rear 50% of the lot by 261 square feet. The code allows a floor area in the rear half of the lot to be up to 25% of the lot square footage --in this case that means a total of 1,1$8 square feet of building floor area is allowed on the rear half of the lot. The 713 square foot portion of the addition that extends into the rear half of the lot, combined with the floor area of the new garage and the existing garage, results in a total of 1449 square feet, instead of the allowed 1188 square feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed addition to the back of the existing home extends beyond the center point of the lot by 17 feet, adding approximately 713 square feet to the rear FAR. The existing garage is 240 square feet and the proposed garage is 576 square feet, making all the combined square footage 261 square feet too large for the FAR. The existing house is currently being added on to and in order to obtain the maximum southern exposure for solar utilization was stretched across the halfway point of the lot. Please see applicants letter. Staff Comments This is the first time that the ZBA has dealt with a variance request to the FAR on the rear half of a lot. The variance would not be needed if the hallway addition connecting the existing home to the new addition was reduced from the proposed 9.33' down to about 5'. This would result in a reduction of about 265 square feet --the amount the floor area of the addition encroaches into the rear half of the lot. At the reduced amount the proposal would comply. The applicant believes that it is important to keep the hallway dimension as shown in order to maximize the solar energy efficiency of the addition, and that reducing it by 4.33' would be detrimental. The Board should determine if this extra 4.33' of house encroachment into the rear half of the lot satisfies the purpose of the standard equally well as a plan showing a reduced hallway dimension, or if the 4.33' encroachment results in a nominal, inconsequential deviation from the standard. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The home is located on a lot with two alleys — one in the rear and one on the south lot line. Besides the addition to the home, the proposed garage would be connected to the existing garage by a breezeway. The existing garage is 240 square feet (on the back corner of the lot) and the proposed garage (576 square feet) make a combined square footage 261 square feet too large for the floor area ratio (FAR) on the rear half of the lot. Donahue asked for further clarification of the Land Use Code's floor limit on the rear half of a lot. Barnes responded that buildings floor area on the rear half of the lot is limited to 25% of the lot area of the rear half of the lot. In this case, the proposal exceeds the limit by 261 square feet. Hall asked for the Code's intent in this situation. Barnes replied the Code intent is to preserve characteristics of old town neighborhoods --to keep the majority of the buildings in the front half of a lot. Hall asked if the proposed expansion home expansion was floor to lot area compliant. Barnes responded yes. ZBA September 13, 2007— Page 5 Miscio asked if the floor area of the breezeway connecting the old and new garage was included in the calculations. Barnes responded no. Applicant's Participation: Andre Mouton, 722 W. Mountain believed the presentation made by Barnes was a good representation of the situation. Additionally, he believed the spirit of the Code is to keep people from placing a number of buildings in the back yard. He believes this proposal is not going against the spirit of the Code nor is it detrimental to the neighborhood. In this case, there are three elements to consider: the addition to the home (including the plan to build nine feet from the foundation and the inclusion of a solar component) with its extension 17 feet into the back half of the lot; the original shed (which they would prefer to not tear down as it is a 'part of the neighborhood';) and the merits of building a carport (which is allowed) versus a garage because for all practical purposes it will have the same scale and impact on the lot. Hall noted in their efforts to stay 9 feet from the foundation, that the design appears to have two separate living spaces. Mouton responded it will all be part of the home with the front door remaining as the primary entry into the structure. He's had experience, on a previous older home they remodeled, that 100 year old foundations made of sandstone and mortar are quite delicate — he would prefer to construct away from the foundation. Miscio asked what justification the applicant could make for the variance. Mouton responded he believed all three apply: to disrupt the foundation would be a hardship, his proposal is equal to or better than as it meets the spirit of the Code relative to the number of buildings on the lot, and lastly it's nominal and inconsequential —a carport with two walls would have as much impact (scale & placement) as a garage. McBride asked where the proposal was for the overall floor to lot area ratio. Barnes responded that 3,800 square feet is allowed and they are at 3779 square feet. Pisula asked if the ratio of garage floor area to living space floor area had any bearing. Barnes responded no. Board Discussion Todd Gilson, 120 N. Grant shares the alley with Mouton. When he received the notification letter he was very encouraged that someone would be upgrading the home —he's happy they are saving the original home. What he's come to realize is with the way the addition is designed it appears there will be four buildings. He feels the proposal is getting on a slippery slope. From his perspective Mouton is not following the rules. He has some concerns about this particular plan and the number of variances that have been approved in the neighborhood. Hall stated while the project is floor to lot area ratio compliant, with the addition appearing to be a second structure, what will happen ten years down the road —what will the house become —a second house behind the original home and connected with a hallway? He'd like to see it attached and four feet shorter --the variance would not be needed if the hallway addition connecting the existing home to the new addition was reduced from the proposed 9.33' down to about 5'. This would result in a reduction of about 265 square feet --the amount the floor area of the addition encroaches into the rear half of the lot. Boyd Bartlett, 731 Laporte, is in agreement with Gilson. Being in construction he knows it is quite doable to have the addition abut the original home. Like Hall he believes the house should be attached and four feet shorter —the design is bothersome. Could the second structure later become a rental. ZBA September 13, 2007— Page 6 Rose Laflin, 125 N. Grant, does not like to see all the changes in the neighborhood —she'd rather there were more restorations keeping in character with the neighborhood then redesigns. She's seen a change to "monster" additions. She's opposed to changes taking up so much of the lot and the density it creates. The addition, if moved up to the current home, is okay but to have two separate houses is not. She's noted many changes have occurred and it seems like the neighbors are not always notified. Barnes explained the notification process. Susan Huskinson, 121 N. Grant, has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. Twenty years ago they improved their property and were able to successfully remain within the guidelines established by the Code. For herself, she'd stand in the middle of the street and if what is proposed is changing the streetscape, go back to the drawing board. What is proposed here is overpowering the small cottage in the front —it creates a bubble in the back. Mouton is happy the proposal has inspired so much interaction with the neighbors. His take, however, is that much of that inspiration comes from other variances in the neighborhood. In this case, he's spent a good deal of time trying to stay within the rules --the funny deal with the limit of 25% of the floor area needing to be behind the half way mark of the lot is why we're here today. The breezeway was planned (active solar collectors on the roof and south side vertical windows with concrete floor) for its solar benefits as well as addressing his concerns about disrupting the foundation. He believes the only question here today is whether he can have a garage rather than a carport. Hall asked how this project fits with regard to the Code and encouraging solar. Barnes responded that Code encourages solar systems that can collect, distribute and store energy and the Code recommends extra consideration when strict adherence would create a hardship when physical conditions such as a lot's narrowness, shallowness or topography come into play. That is not the case in his situation. McBride stated he believed the Code rules are imperfect —in this case encouraging more mass in the front of the lot. Miscio thinks the neighbor to the rear would not be able to see the proposed mass. McBride believes that Mr. Mouton is the victim of pent up frustration about changes in the neighborhood. From an architect's perspective, the design is not so bad and the additional four feet is nominal and inconsequential. Barnes said impact to the neighborhood is also felt on the 2"' alley (to the south) and the other side of the lot, not just to the rear. Dickson noted the 600 square feet allowed in the rear half of the lot does not limit the number of structures. Barnes responded that's where the floor to lot area ratio comes into play. Pisula would prefer Mouton push the addition closer to the existing home. He believes there is a reason Code requires less accessory buildings in the rear part of a lot. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2587 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 of the 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 impact on the neighborhood is nominal and inconsequential because most of the mass of the house is in the front of the lot and in light of the way the home is designed the encroachment is a mere four feet past the half way mark of the lot and there will be no perceived visual impact beyond how it would if it was in full compliance with the Code. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, McBride, Miscio ZBA September 13, 2007— Page 7 Nays: Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Pisula The motion did not pass, thus the variance was not approved. 5. APPEAL NO. 2588 — CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 11T" MEETING Address: 1506 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Paul & Stacie Kenny Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot width from 40' to 35' at the part of the lot where a proposed house is planned to be constructed. The rear portion of the lot is 40' wide, but the front part of the lot is only 35' wide. The petitioners desire to construct the house in the front part of the lot so that it will be in character with the location of the other houses on the block. Staff Presentation: Barnes reported that late the afternoon of September 121h, the applicant provided documents including architectural drawings that showed demolition of the current garage and the construction of a new garage. Because affected property owners had received notification on a different proposal; re -notification will need to take place. The applicant, Paul Kenny, agreed. Hall made a motion to continue the consideration of the above application until the October 131h meeting. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 6. APPEAL NO. 2589—WITHDRAWN Address: 2557 Maple Hill Drive Petitioner: Jim Schroeder Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(2) Barnes reported the request for a variance had been withdrawn. (The variance request was to reduce the required street side setback along Thoreau Drive from 15' to 14' 5" in order to allow the construction of a new home on the lot.) ZBA September 13, 2007— Page 8 7. Other Business: Barnes reported a breakfast is being planned prior the November 141" meeting. It was scheduled at a time when outgoing member Andy Miscio could attend. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Alison Dickson, Vice -Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator