No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2000 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting December 14, 2000 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes from the November 9, 2000 meeting. 3. Appeal : 2316 The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Olive Street from 15 feet to 4.5 feet in order to allow a one-story family room addition to be constructed. The variance would also allow the roof of the addition to be flat rather than having a 2:12 minimum roof pitch. The Olive Street setback of the existing home is already nonconforming with a setback of eight feet. Section 4.6(E)(4) and 4.6 (F)(1)(g), by George Gaebler and Laura Olive-Gaebler, Owners. 231 South Grant Street. 4. Appeal : 2317 The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from five feet to three feet in order to allow the construction of a 96 square foot storage shed. The shed is abutting the existing west wall of the home. Section 4.3(D)(2)(d), by Joe Schlauer, Owner. 948 Deer Creek Lane. 5. Other Business ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting December 14, 2000 A eal 2316: --- 231 South Grant Street --- Petitioner: George Gaebler and Laura Olive-Gaebler, owners — Zone: NCL — Section 4.6(E)(4)and 4.6 (F)(1)(g) The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Olive Street from 15 feet to 4.5 feet in order to allow a one-story family room addition to be constructed. The variance would also allow the roof of the addition to be flat rather than having a 2:12 minimum roof pitch. The Olive Street setback of the existing home is already nonconforming with a setback of eight feet. Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioners' letter. Staff comments: Like many lots in Old Town, the property line for this lot is 20 feet behind the Olive Street curb. Newer subdivisions have the lot line 9 feet behind the curb. The result is that the setback for this addition is actually further from the street than would the setback be for a building that complied with the required 15 foot setback in a newer subdivision. Appeal 2317: --- 948 Deer Creek Lane --- Petitioner: Joe Schlauer, owner Zone: RL --- Section 4.3(D)(2)(d) _ --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from five (� feet to three feet in order to allow the construction of a 96 square foot storage shed. The shed is abutting the existing west wall of the home.. — Petitioner's statement of hardship: In order to comply with the required five foot setback, the shed could be no wider than five feet, a width that is not functional. This is the only feasable location for a shed due to the existence of mature landscaping in the back yard. --- Staff comments: None. George Gaebler and Laura Olive- Gaebler 231 South Grant Avenue Fort Collins, Co 80521 907-482-8174 November 29, 2000 RE: zoning variance request for 231 South Grant, Fort Collins, Co 80521 To the members of the zoning variance board, Thank you for your consideration of a zoning variance for our residence. We wanted to give you an understanding of why we are making this request. Our goal in renovating this home is to make it function better for the way families live today while maintaining the home's historic integrity. We have employed an architect to help us reach this goal and help us select building materials and finish commensurate with the historic nature of the home. Over the past couple of years we have been working on plans to renovate the home. While we have had a very clear plan of what the renovations will be in the master bedroom we struggled with the family room off the kitchen area. Originally we strived to avoid adding to on the home. We wanted to work with the space within the existing exterior walls. Our architect came up with several proposals, none of these gave us the space we needed to live in the home the way we wanted to. It became clear this summer that the only way to have a reasonable size family room off the kitchen was to add on to the south. We have an existing gazebo to the north that adds considerably to the charm and the grace of the home that we do not want to eliminate. We even considered adding on to the north somewhat encroaching on to the gazebo, however due to differences in floor height (between the kitchen and the current laundry room) the resulting room was too small(I I x 8) to accomplish a usable family room, when considering traffic flow through this room and furniture placement etc. We considered going to the west, however we have an old apple tree that has seven varieties of apples graphed on it that would have to come out. We really didn't want to lose the tree for both its interest and shade. In addition it would create an unusable spot to the south of the kitchen that we would not be able to access from the yard and adding a family room to the west would cut into the back yard considerably. Architecturally it would lengthen the home, which would not be in keeping with the historical character of the home and neighborhood. As a side note by going west we would lose two existing windows to the basement room directly below the kitchen. This would greatly depreciate the natural fight we would get in that room and the combustion air that is needed in for the furnace in the adjacent room. In short we want these windows to promote the safety, light and ventilation of that basement room. The proposal that we are present for your consideration is a result of many hours of our time and our architect's time in trying other options. We are proposing that we add a room measuring 16 x 14 to the south side of the kitchen. This would give us the space we need for a reasonable size family room, it would give us the natural light that is difficult to get in older homes and provide excellent accessibility into the back yard. Also this proposal would allow us to be in keeping with the proportion of the existing rooms in the home. The result would be a home that is usable and create excellent esthetic from the street without inhibiting or curtaining the neighbors or public use. We believe it is the common sense way to go. As the case with many older homes, this home does not meet the current zoning requirements. The south wall of the existing home is only 9 feet from the property line where the current code requires 15 feet since we are on a corner. Also the existing garage is on the rear property line along the alley. The paradox is that even if we added to the south side of the kitchen flush with the existing south wall of the home we would need to get a variance from you today since the existing house does not comply. It would not be cost effective to add such a small family room and it would not result in a usable space. Esthetically the home would not be as attractive from the street since it would have a massive wall from front to back without any break. The addition we propose is within the 3:1 ratio of lot square footage to building square footage required by this zoning. When we initially considered going to the south we where shocked to find out that our south property line is inside the historic decorative fence that currently defines the front yard! We appreciate your consideration and ask that you look at the photos we have provided to see that what we are proposing will not infringe the cities property since there is so much space between our south property line and the sidewalk (and the curb) nor will it create any traffic concerns as the existing street (Olive) is extremely wide and used for local traffic only. What we propose will be inside the existing white fence by two feet! Please feel free to call should have any questions. Sincerely, .Ova e ' George and Laura Gaebler ( Y To: City of Fort Collins From: Mike Walters 1Mike Walters,owner of the home at 954 Deer Creek Lane,Ft. Collins,verify that my house is l 0' from my east side property line. My home is 13' from the shed being built at 948 Deer Creek Lane. ' 7on�n� _Board of Appeals I. d 4jec em ber 14, 2000 !6 - �11 Sollll) Grant Street_. Appeal 2317 948 Deer Creel: L:)ne Appeal 2316 231 South Grant St. 'I I L lit ianct'Nloald rcdocr the ,it ocI side x'thack along Olive Street from 15 tect to 4 n .�Icct in ur'drr To allo%%a nor-tita fimilc room addilion to he eonclnicled. 'the tariaIce Mould also a11o%I the roof of the adtliIiou I be flat Ili lhcr than ha,in,al_)2 minimum root pi(ch. .'. A e- 1w. . A7, 'A' 1 •,4 ti�L} d k '�°: �a• It 1 it '"* •F � f:+ �'� ,yr �' l ts.1 �,ems. .F _� _•:''i i' •_, b i° .�. � fl i �'�*Z1JGr. ni ( I `Sf�f� �p F._� _' mad ItF{,lil+M4`. F�- `���i�w #�'-• d- rr. ' a s ,\,,,tin,looking ItuItjl1n,lbe'C40Qc-ofth1.Itouw �ltLn, ✓ '"�".• - - *. - - "' (Mite fit.) 'I lie 5oullt:el.nll 8+, III h'e)fe(rlll 111V Isagk .1 j Ltk l all uy-,Ohir`it. '1'hrprroltrrly wine ry 11--:,1% properl� line- y� f'd ikl C'a 411111.IN;cidV%L;Plk_ Ile - ; B � 4i 3 r fit' t+11�� +"�!' ilr � �� .�, ' '��Y �•. - � _ — �1 i —'u I lit,'prue mlvl asldilina[till tL ilk cVcnd to 11w ttr+l and ul the,oath. I Ite proposed addition mill extend out llu 49)Peet from the I he ne[+1a71+1i1111r f1u+h tl ilh the c\i.tink[tall nt dx•huu.e. nouUl doll. -I his includ"like I foot for the fireplace. '.��� ��1WlilllllH�lllfl1� y�97011 ti — -�.t '' .,,, Sri_ Zoninq,°Board of Appeals ecem er 14, 2000 ` The End 101 of Nu•IPnCe and,hed trnro the adjaccal prnperi)-iu 6e+�r,t. d3 l.: