Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/14/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — August 14, 2008 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 14, 2008 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: Ronald Daggett Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride Jim Pisula David Shands EXCUSED ABSENCES: Michael Bello STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Suess, 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 July 10, 2008 meeting. Daggett seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Abstain: 3. APPEAL NO. 2619 - Approved Address: 717 Eastdale Dr. Petitioner: Harold Wilcox Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(E)(3), 4.7(F)(1)(g) Background: This variance request was denied at the July 10, 2008 ZBA meeting. However, the applicant is requesting that the Board consider his request to rehear the appeal based on new evidence which he was not able to present at the July 10'" meeting. Specifically, some Board ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 2 members suggested alternative locations for the shed during the discussion of this matter at the July hearing. However, the applicant believes he was not prepared to adequately address the merits of these suggestions at the hearing, and now that he has had time to exam them he is prepared to offer a case against the alternative suggestions. The applicant is requesting that the Board grant a rehearing, and that the rehearing be heard at the August 14, 2008 regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. The variance will reduce the required rear yard setback along the alley from 5' to 2' for a new, 128 square foot detached storage shed, and would allow the roof pitch of the shed to exceed the maximum allowed 12:12 pitch. Specifically, the roof would have a pitch of 23:12. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The following was the applicant's original explanation for the July 10"' meeting: There is a substantial row of mature lilacs that would need to be removed in order to place the shed at this location in compliance with the 5' setback. The owner believes that there is no other feasible location for the shed. The owner desires to have a storage loft in the shed, and in order to accommodate a loft with sufficient headroom without building a wider shed, a steeper pitched roof is necessary. Following is the text from the applicant's letter requesting the rehearing: Reason for Reapplication: This is a reapplication for identical variances requested in Appeal Number 2619, which was denied on July 10, 2008. The evidence submitted in support of that application was based only on the applicant's consideration of the desired location and the relative proximity of the mature lilacs on the property. At that hearing, it was suggested by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals that there were other options for placing the shed on the property in a manner that would comply with applicable codes. While the law does not require the board to deny a request on that basis, a number of board members felt it in the best interest of the community to avoid issuing a variance in this case without stronger cause. Subsequent to the hearing, the applicant investigated the suggested possible placement of the shed along with numerous other possibilities. Only upon looking directly at these possibilities did the applicant discover that there are strong arguments against them. Had he known that at the time of the original application, he would have submitted these arguments, but, again, he was focused only on the immediate issue of the location of the lilacs. The applicant respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals reconsider the application in light of the evidence presented below, which is of a much strong nature than that originally presented. Zoning District: NCL Description: The variance will reduce the required rear -yard setback along the alley from 5' to 2' for a new, 128 square foot detached portable storage shed, and would allow the roof pitch of the shed to exceed the maximum allowed 12:12 pitch, specifically to include a pitch of 23:12. Justifications: ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 3 SETBACK REDUCTION VARIANCE Undue Hardship: Locating the shed at any other location on the property would create one or more of the following undue hardships: 1) "relocation" of the existing aluminum shed, which is unfeasible due to its flimsy nature and would therefore require replacement and a new foundation. Further, locating the shed in the area of this existing aluminum shed is displeasing to the next -door neighbor who has expressed vehement opposition to placement that adheres to code. The reasons for the opposition are that that location would block the neighbor's view both from the kitchen window and from a bedroom window located in their very large garage. Also, this will block airflow to the bedroom window. 2) removal of a row of mature lilacs that are more than forty (40) years old. 3) removal of a large portion or the entirety of a mature apple tree which has been described by City of Fort Collins Zoning Administrator Mr. Peter Barnes as the biggest old apple tree he has seen. This tree is at least fifty (50) years old — probably nearly sixty (60) years old as the house was constructed in 1949! 4) placing it directly in the middle of the back lawn, which is aesthetically ridiculous and unnecessarily would leave the owner with no useable lawn area. Better than Compliance: Placement of the shed at the proposed location will promote the general purpose of the standard better than compliance for the following reason: Dimensional standards for neighborhood conservation in the low -density district (N-C-L) in which the property is located require a minimum five (5) feet of setback. 4.7(Ex4) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards... Part of the intent of this standard is obviously to ensure that buildings are spaced at least ten (10) feet apart in order to minimize the likelihood of a fire spreading (five feet from each side of the line = ten feet total). Because the detached garage on the neighboring property to the east was built several decades ago with a variance placing it two (2) feet from the property line, placing the intended shed at that location would put it within seven (7) feet of said garage, thus fulling that intent of the standard less well than the proposed location, which is more than twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest building (excepting the existing fireproof shed). Nominal, Inconsequential Effect on Neighborhood: This proposal 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. Due to the physical location of the two homes across the alley, this shed will be virtually invisible to their view. The proposed placement is also more aesthetically pleasing than any other possible placement, and the neighbors on both sides agree on this point as do numerous other neighbors who are willing to testify to that effect. ROOF -PITCH VARIANCE Undue Hardship: The owner is in need of significant storage space due to the small size of the house which has no garage and ONLY limited storage space provided by the small attic, which is further limited by a ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 4 hipped roof. Hence, a shed with a loft is desired. The increased roof pitch is necessary to provide headroom for a loft without building a wider shed, which would amplify all of the above issues. As Good as Compliance: Due to the existence of two other buildings along this same alley which have the same roof pitch as requested, one a 10' x 20' storage shed oriented in the same direction as the proposed shed, this proposal fulfills the intent and purpose of the code to preserve the nature of the neighborhood. Better than Compliance: Another option to a wider shed in order to comply with the 12:12 roof -pitch requirement is a much taller shed. Building a much taller shed in order to comply with the code's 12:12 roof -pitch requirement would result in a building that is displeasing to the eye and would fulfill the aesthetic intent of the code less well than compliance. Staff Comments: Staff believes that the new evidence outlined in the petitioner's letter is sufficient to grant the rehearing. Staff Presentation: Barnes informed the board that they must first consider the petitioner's request for a rehearing, and if a rehearing is warranted make a motion to grant the rehearing request. Bylaws allow a rehearing for items denied at the previous hearing. The rehearing request must be scheduled for the next meeting of the board following the denial. The rehearing request can only be granted if it is determined that there is new evidence to be presented which couldn't have been presented at the first hearing and that some unknown factor has surfaced. At the first hearing, board members felt there were other locations on the property that would be suitable for the shed that would not require a variance. The applicant, after that hearing, conversed with the neighbor to the east who has a garage two feet from the lot line. After hearing her concerns about the proposed locations, the applicant decided to request a rehearing. Notices were sent to the same property owners as were on the original list, notifying them of the request for a rehearing, and that if the rehearing was approved the hearing would be conducted today; therefore, all notice requirements have been satisfied. Applicant's Participation: Harold Wilcox, 717 Eastdale Drive. The proposal by a board member that the shed be constructed near the neighbor's existing garage would place the shed within 7 feet of that garage. The intent of the code is to have 5' on both sides of the line which provides 10' between buildings for fire safety. If he did put the shed within 3' of the property line even if it were so small it didn't require a permit, the applicant would be required to install a fire wall because it would be within 8' of the other building. He is precluding several other proposed locations because of the large apple tree and the lilac bushes. Additionally, his neighbor's large garage has a portion that has been converted into a bedroom where the neighbor sleeps. The proposed location would block both air flow and the view from her bedroom window. That location would also block the alley view from her kitchen window. Hall moved to rehear Appeal No. 2619 based on the new evidence. Shands seconded the motion. The motion to rehear Appeal No. 2619 was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Staff Presentation: Barnes proceeded with the rehearing and presented slides relevant to the application. Barnes stated there is neither an attached or detached garage on the property. The ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 5 large apple tree limits the location of the shed. The neighbor's garage referenced by the applicant is about 2' from the lot line. The shed would abut the lilacs and then be 2' from the lot line along the alley. It is also difficult to see any buildings on the other side of the alley. It would be necessary to deal with the overhang from the apple tree if the shed were placed where a board member suggested. Again, the variance has two parts: (1) to reduce the alley setback from 5' to 2', and (2) to allow the pitch of the shed's roof to be steeper than 12:12. Dickson asked why the 12:12 pitch was desirable. Barnes responded that in zoning districts NCL, NCM and NCB, the intent was to preserve the character of the neighborhood with regard to architectural design. A minimum of 2:12 and a maximum of 12:12 was established because that's what most buildings have. The exception is a flat pitched roof. The new roof pitch can also match the existing pitch on a principal building; i.e., if the existing house had a 23:12 or steeper pitch, then the new structure's roof can match that pitch. There is a two-story limit. Audience Participation: James Hall, 701 Eastdale Drive. Mr. Hall lives across the street and to the west. He is in favor of this request for a variance. Mr. Bowden, 709 Eastdale. He lives two houses to the west of Mr. Wilcox. He has no objection to the proposed shed as it will be in the middle of the alley and won't be an obstruction. Additionally, he has witnessed all the changes Mr. Wilcox has made to the house, and they are very attractive. Ray Franklin: 705 Eastdale Drive. He sees the shed as an improvement to the neighborhood and supports the variance request. Mavis C. Johnson, 721 Eastdale Drive. She is the next -door neighbor, and is the individual that sleeps in the garage. Johnson stated she has enjoyed the view of the Wilcox property for years, and she fully supports the variance request. Phoebe Weitz, 713 Eastdale, to the west of the subject property. She stated the shed will be closer to her property than anyone else in the neighborhood, and she fully supports its construction. Board Discussion: Hall stated the facts regarding the neighboring garage have changed his perspective about the appeal. McBride asked about the height of the storage unit and height limitations for that type of building. Applicant stated that the shed height at its peak is 17'. Barnes stated that there is a height limitation of 20' for this type of building. McBride said that he doesn't feel the impact of having the shed 2' from the alley (which is open space) is as great as having it 5' from the neighbor's garage, and that it's equal to or better than blocking the corner of the property in terms of keeping open space around the houses. Hall asked the applicant about changes that would be made to the fence. Wilcox responded that they will remove the section of fence that will be behind the shed and then re -attach the fence at both comers of the shed. McBride moved to approve Appeal 2619 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 6 standard for which the variance is requested is the size, location and proximity of the structure in relationship to the neighborhood environment. 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. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because the location of the shed is off the alley as opposed to a neighboring lot line which would diminish the view and air movement of the neighbor who sleeps in her garage. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2622 - Approved Address: 6508 Westchase Ct. Petitioner: Jeff and Kris Sroufe Zone: UE Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d ) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the north and south side lot lines from 20' to 10' for a new home which is proposed to be constructed on this lot. The lot is a pie shaped lot, and reducing the setback requirement will allow the house to be built further forward on the lot, more in keeping with the other adjacent homes, helping to preserve the view of the adjacent homes. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is a pie shaped lot, which would require a front setback of 93' in order to comply with a 20' side yard setback on both sides. A house at that location would obstruct the views of the open space which is currently enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. At that setback, the house would also be about 20' behind the front of the house to the south, resulting in the neighbors having a view of the side of the home. Moving the home forward preserves everyone's view, and aligns this house with the predominant setback of the street. Staff Comments: Since this zone requires a 20' side setback instead of the normal 5' side setback, the pie -shaped lot can be considered as a contributing factor to a hardship finding. Even though the request to go from a 20' required setback to the proposed 10' setback is not nominal by itself, the result may be nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood since the setback reduction would allow the house to be built at about the same front setback as the neighboring house and would preserve existing views enjoyed by the neighbors. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The subject property is a pie shaped lot. The setback in the UE, urban estate zone, is a 20' setback from the side lot line. The proposed house would be at an approximate 107 setback from both property lines. Barnes provided background information regarding the 20' required setback. At the time the city annexed this property, plats were provided by the county, but without the additional information that 20' setbacks were required for the UE portion of the subdivision. Therefore, some permits were approved for home with only a 10' setback. Consequently, three or four houses in the UE portion of the subdivision have setbacks less than 20'. Because of the pie -shaped lots in the cul-de-sac, the distance between the houses is greater as you go to the back of the property. Approximately ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 7 50% of the lot has a 10' height elevation difference. In order to locate the house to meet the 20' setback requirement, the house would be 93' from the front lot line. Hall questioned the rationale regarding the 20' setback. Barnes responded the lots are designed to create a more rural feel even though they are in an urban setting. The city requires a 30' front yard setback instead of the normal 20', and a 25' rear yard setback instead of 15'. Applicant's Participation: Jeff Sroufe, owner of the lot at 6508 Westchase Court. He was accompanied by Kim Rose with Rose Custom Homes. Rose has built four other homes in the neighborhood and lives there also. The views are the main issues. If the house is built where required without the variance, it will block the view of the house to the north. The owners of the already -constructed home next to this lot with a 10' side yard setback are the individuals who proposed this variance and are lobbying for it. They contacted Mr. Barnes before Rose was contacted. The second issue is drainage. These are walk -out lots, and there is a small swale. If Rose Custom Homes is forced to move this house back because this variance is not approved, they will have to figure out how to keep water from going on to both of those property lines. In that instance, the swale will have to be moved back approximately 50' also. There would also be drainage issues at the house next to it. The owner of the already existing home next door requests that his views be preserved as well as providing appropriate drainage for the area. About 30% of his view and 50% of the view of the property to the north will be ruined if the variance is denied. Additionally, the proposed house will be set so far back that it will look very different from any of the homes in the neighborhood. HOA standards require that the front of the building has to be 60% or more nongarage. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: McBride asked if the driveway is part of the setbacks. Barnes responded that the yard can be concreted to the lot line. McBride also asked about the garage setback requirements. Barnes stated the garage setback does not apply to county -approved subdivisions or subdivisions that were approved in the city prior to the implementation of the Land Use Code. Hall asked about the merits of HOA requirements. Eckman stated that the city is not bound by HOA requirements, but they should be used in the board's analysis because landowners are bound by them. This property is difficult to develop when applying the city's code. McBride asked how concerned the HOA is about the 10' side yard setback. Rose responded that the HOA is not as concerned about the side yard setback as they are about the aesthetics of the neighborhood and the fit of the new home with the adjacent neighbors. Dickson moved to approve Appeal 2622 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the hardship justification, there are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property as follows: the lot is a pie -shaped, irregularly -shaped lot which makes it more difficult to comply with the 20' side lot setback requirement. Additionally, the topography of the land would pose some substantial drainage issues if the house were to be set back further into the lot to comply with the side lot setbacks. Locating the house to the back of the lot would also obscure the neighbors' views of the mountains. The HOA's requirement that the garage not take up more than 40% of the frontage of the house makes it difficult to comply because the house needs to be wide in order to meet the HOA standard. The HOA is in support of the setback of the house being consistent with the neighboring house setbacks. Because of these conditions, the strict application of the standard would result in unusual and exceptional difficulties for the applicant which are not caused by the applicant. Hall seconded the motion. Appeal 2622 was approved. ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 8 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO. 2623 - Approved Address: 615 W. Olive Street Petitioner: Susan Johnson Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(E)(4), 4.7(D)(5) Background: The variance will 1) reduce the required overall lot area to floor area ratio from 2.5 to 1 to 2.24 to 1, 2) increase the allowed building floor area in the rear half of the lot from 469 square feet to 1069 square feet, and 3) reduce the required side yard setback along the alley from 5' to 2'. These variances are requested in order to allow a 332 square foot garage addition to the existing 158 square foot detached garage/shed. The existing garage building currently has a 0' setback along the alley, but the addition is proposed to be offset to the west by 2% so it will have a greater setback then the existing building. The current garage and a majority of the house are already located in the rear half of the lot, creating an existing nonconforming situation. Only 191 square feet of the garage addition will be located in the rear half of the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a small lot, only 3,750 square feet. Like numerous comer lots in the old town area, it was split off from the original lot many years ago. As a result, it is also a shallow lot, which creates a hardship with regards to the rear half floor area requirement. The existing detached garage is only 10' x 16', and isn't large enough to accommodate a car. A large tree restricts where an addition can be located. The 2' side setback is greater than the existing setback, but the addition can't be moved any further west because it will be too close to the house. Staff Comments: A hardship variance can be supported due to the shallowness of the lot. This lot is only 50' deep, compared to the typical 190' lot depth of other lots in the neighborhood. The large tree which restricts the location of any garage addition can be considered a topographic hardship. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. In the last few months, there have been numerous requests to allow more floor area in the rear half of the lot than is allowed by the code. The intent of the code is to meet the needs of neighbors concerned about the intensity and density of rear lot developments or redevelopment in the old town neighborhoods. The fact that the overall coverage in back is limited also limits the number of buildings that can be built there as well as the size of house additions. Many of the back portions of corner properties have been sold, and the lots are developed with houses that face the corner street. Those lots are often so shallow that a portion of the house is already in the rear half of the lot, making it difficult for individuals to do improvements without a variance. The subject lot is 50' deep. Anything in the back 25' of the lot counts towards the floor area you are allowed on the rear 50'. The majority of this house is already in the back half of the lot and the existing garage/shed is entirely in the back half. The existing garage/shed is at a 0' setback along the alley. The proposed addition would be offset 2' to the west so the addition will have a greater setback than the existing. There is also a large tree in back which dictates where the garage addition can be constructed. It cannot be built too close to the house because of building code issues and windows. It is about 7' from the back of the house to the back lot line. Under the code, Petitioner would be allowed no more than 469 square feet of floor area. The existing floor area in the back half of the lot is already 822 square ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 9 feet. The floor area of the new construction that would be in the back half of the lot would be 191 square feet. Hall asked about the requirement for a garage setback in the NCL zone. Barnes responded that there is a 10' setback requirement from the front of the home and the petitioner has met that. Applicant's Participation: Susan Johnson, 615 West Olive Street. Petitioner stated that she really needs a garage for car storage to park off the street in the winter. Also, her house is only 1185 square feet with two closets, so the extra storage space would be welcome. Hall asked if the new garage would connect to the existing structure. Johnson responded yes, that was the contractor's recommendation. Hall asked if she had considered the challenges of turning a car into that space. Johnson responded that she is already doing this because there is an existing parking pad where the addition is proposed. Audience Participation: Carl Denton, 301 South Whitcomb. Denton stated he sees nothing wrong with the addition. Board Discussion: Hall stated it meets the definition of hardship given the lot size and other restraints. Dickson stated she felt the standard of having most of the dwelling in the front half of the lot is geared toward deeper lots and does not apply in this situation. McBride moved to approve Appeal 2623 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There is an exceptional physical condition or other extraordinary and exceptional situation unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal as follows: the extreme shallowness of this 50' lot. Because of the foregoing unique condition, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficukies or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant/owner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant/owner. The unique conditions coupled with the strict application of the standards sought to be varied result in the practical difficulties or hardship because nothing can be built withou a variance. Pisula seconded the motion. Appeal 2623 was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None 9. Other Business Barnes reminded board members that the compliance forms are due by September 'It. A discussion about the September 11, 2008 hearing revealed that at least three of the board members will not be in attendance. Barnes stated he will not be able to attend the October V, meeting and suggested that the October meeting be changed from October 9, 2008 to October 16, 2008. The board cancelled the September 11, 2008 meeting. Hall moved to change the date of the October 2008 meeting from October 9, 2008 to October 16, 2008. Pisula seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Wight Hall, Chairperson zo ZBA August 14, 2008— Page 10 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator