HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/11/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — October 11, 2007
8:30 a.m.
II Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11
B Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 11, 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
Dana McBride
Jim Pisula
EXCUSED ABSENCES:
Robert Donahue
Dwight Hall
Andy Miscio
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:
Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 13, 2007 meeting.
Daggett seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, McBride, Pisula
Nays:
3. APPEAL NO.
2588 - Withdrawn
Address:
1506 W. Oak Street
Petitioner:
Paul and Stacie Kenny
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.7 (Dx1)
Background:
THE APPEAL HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard at the
September 13, 2007 ZBA meeting but was continued to the October 11, 2007 meeting as a result
of the submittal of revised drawings. After reviewing the revised drawings, it's been determined
that a variance is no longer required since the proposed new construction does not increase the
amount of floor area that it is replacing. Specifically, 663 square feet of floor area is being
ZBA October 11, 2007— Page 2
removed (353 sq. ft. detached garage, 5.5' x 13.4' shed addition, and 236 sq. ft. "covered shed/hot
tub enclosure"), and only 538 sq. ft. of floor area is being proposed as replacement. No lot area to
floor area ratio variance is required„as long as the maximum new floor area proposed for the
addition and the new garage does not exceed 663 sq. ft. combined, or as long as the maximum
floor area of the new addition and the existing detached garage does not exceed 663 square feet.
All new construction, however, must comply with required setbacks.
4. APPEAL NO.
2590 - Approved
Address:
728 Eastdale Drive
Petitioner:
Ralph Eberspacher
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.7(D)(5)
Background:
The applicant is proposing the construction of a one-story, 1452 square foot addition on the back of
the existing house. The addition will consist of an 895 square foot main floor with a 557 square
foot attached garage. The maximum allowed floor area on the rear half of the lot is 1015 square
feet, and the variance would result in 1521 square feet.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The intent of the standard is to limit the amount of building coverage in the rear portion of old town
lots. Old town lots are generally 150' to 190' in depth. This lot, however, is in a subdivision that
was designed and constructed decades after the original old town lots were designed and
constructed. As a result, this subdivision doesn't resemble the layout of the lots for which the
standard is intended to apply. For instance, this lot is only 125' in depth, instead of the normal 150'
to 190'. As a result of this shallowness, it is difficult to construct an addition with a rear -loaded
garage. In order to construct an addition of the needed size, and in compliance with the code, the
applicant would need to construct a 2nd story addition. All of the other homes in this subdivision
are one-story homes, so a 2nd story would be out of character with the existing neighborhood.
Staff Comments:
The purpose of the standard is to regulate the amount of building coverage in the rear half of
residential lots in the Old Town Area. Even though this property is in the NCL zone, one of the Old
Town zoning districts, the subdivision in which it is located does not resemble an Old Town
subdivision in design, nor do the lots that comprise the subdivision resemble Old Town lots in
shape or size. Therefore, it's difficult to apply the standard to this type of lot. And if the standard is
applied, it probably results in second floor additions, rather than single -story additions that
preserve the one-story character of this bungalow neighborhood.
The Board could find that this unique situation (design, shape, shallowness) supports a hardship
variance in that the purpose for which the standard is intended does not apply to this particular
subdivision, and in fact application of the standard would be detrimental to the public good by
possibly resulting in 2-story homes which would change the character of the subdivision.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. Barnes noted this application is similar to one
heard at the September 2007 meeting —a home addition (which will consist of an 895 square foot
main floor and a 557 square foot attached garage) with a proposed floor area of 1521 square feet
on the rear half of the lot. Code allows only 25% of the total floor area on the rear half of the lot or
1015 square feet.
ZBA October It, 2007— Page 3
Eastdale is a looped street off of Stover. The intent of the 1991 Code revision allows only 25% of
the floor area of the lot to be in the rear half of the lot in the NCL, NCM and NCB zones. Council
wanted to preserve the character of Eastside/ Westside old town neighborhoods. In this
neighborhood, there are not classic old town characteristics such as rectangular, deep,
perpendicular lots with alleys in the rear. In the Eastdale neighborhood there pie shaped lots on
cul-de-sacs, with dead ends or looped streets, and lots of varying sizes that are shallower and
wider. In manycases, including on the adjacent property, homes are built on the back portion of
the lot.
Applicant's Participation:
Ralph Eberspacher, 728 Eastdale Drive, noted the summary presented by Barnes fairly represents
the situation. He's lived in the neighborhood for the past 10 years —more recently as a home
owner. As the single father of two sons, he's like to increase the size of his current home (from
940 square feet.) The addition includes a 557 square foot attached garage that will provide off
street parking with access from the alley and the space needed for his "kid's implements." He's
been working with the architect in planning the design and meeting Code requirements. Only
recently did he learn they were non -compliant with regard to having only 25% of the square
footage of all structures on the back half of the lot. His lot is not typical to old town lots —he's lot is
70 feet wide and has 100 feet on one side and 125 on the other side. He doesn't want a second
story. He wants to do as other neighbors have done with remodels in the past 20 years —use the
back side of his lot.
McBride noted it appears he could have added to the front of the home. Eberspacher responded
his is a bungalow home and he wanted to build on the rear portion of the lot as other neighbors
had. He wanted to take advantage of maximizing southern exposure and building a courtyard.
McBride asked what was north of his lot. Eberspacher replied his friend (Jean) and neighbor's
property. In conversations with her she did not register concern for his plans. Also, they both
contributed to the construction of a six foot fence that separates their property.
McBride noted that it appears a basement is planned with a window well and if built would be only
1 foot from the property line. Eberspacher noted he's not sure at this juncture if he'll move forward
with constructing a basementlinstalling a window well.
Board Discussion
Dickson noted the neighborhood does not have standard old town lots and asked Barnes if the
floor to lot area ratios were in compliance. Barnes responded yes.
Pisula noted other variances must been granted given the amount of construction on the rear
portion of neighborhood lots.
McBride asked if the reason he had not expanded to the north was the tree on that side.
Eberspacher said he did not add to the north was the slab construction and his preference to
improve the property on the south side.
Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2590 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 due to the configuration of the lot . The intent of the Code was
based on a typical long, shallow old town configured lot. In this situation, the lot is wider,
shallower and it's fairly difficult to keep most of the square footage in the front portion of
the lot. Also, in the context of the neighborhood, many of homes like this have more square
footage in the back than in the front of their lots. The applicant may be forced to consider a
ZBA October 11, 2007— Page 4
second story addition and it would not fit in the context of the neighborhood (construction
that is spread out on the lot is preferred.) Pisula seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, McBride, Pisula
Nays:
5. Other Business:
The bi-annual board breakfast is scheduled prior to the November 14`h meeting. The meeting
follows at 8:45 a.m.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman reported a suit has been filed in District Court relative to a case
heard by the ZBA on September, 13, 2007 (Case 2586, 420 Wood Street.) The individual, for
which a restraining order currently prohibits him from being within 150 feet of the applicant, claims
he was denied his right to share his feedback during the public testimony portion of the review. He
asks that the applicant be denied the variance, refrain from beginning construction, and have the
ZBA rehear the case allowing him opportunity to speak. More information will be available later.
Barnes noted, if the applicant returns for a re -hearing, they will request he get a survey so that
information is available for the board.
The meeting adjour d at 9:10 a.m.
Alison Dickson, Vice -Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator