Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/13/2002A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday June 13, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Donahue David Lingle Andy Miscio Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Shannon made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 9, 2002, meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL NO. 2385 — Approved. Address: 311 East Plum Street Petitioner: Doug and Gale Whitman ZBAJui. _3,2002 Page 2 Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the east lot line from ten feet to three feet in order to allow the existing second floor of the house to be expanded by the addition of a dormer. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home is existing at a 2.7 feet side -yard setback. The existing second floor contains two bedrooms and a bathroom. The dormer expansion is desired in order to increase the height in the bathroom to allow a person to stand-up straight, to increase headroom in one of the bedrooms, and to allow additional closet space. The building footprint size will not be increased as a result of the second floor improvements. Moving the dormer in an additional seven feet would result in only additional space and headroom in the attic. An alley runs along the east lot line, so the dormer will not impact any neighboring property owner, and the intent of the code is met. Staff Comments: Since the side of the home that requires the variance is abutting an alley, the Board may determine that the intent of the setback standard is met. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the variance would reduce the east lot line from ten feet to three feet. Barnes noted the east lot line is an alley lot line. Barnes commented the sideyard setback requirements in this particular zone are five feet for the first 18 feet of wall height, and an additional one foot of setback for each additional two feet of wall height. Barnes stated with the addition of the dormer a ten -foot setback is required. Remington asked what the width of the alley was. Barnes responded that it was a standard 20- foot alley. Donahue asked what the purpose was for the setback envelope. Barnes replied that it was mainly for lighting and shade. Applicant Participation: Doug Whitman addressed the Board. Whitman stated the proposed dormer is for their bathroom to make it more useable. Whitman brought a model and showed it to the Board. Whitman has been working with the City's Historic Preservation office. Whitman explained why he choose to put the dormer in it's proposed location. Board Discussion: Shannon asked the Applicant if the City's Historic Preservation Office had approved the proposed dormer addition. Whitman stated he just had a meeting the Historic Preservation Office yesterday, and they recommened he make the dormers symmetrical. Z1 .'June 13, 2002 Page 3 Remington stated that he felt the variance would fall under the equal to or better than standard. Remington noted the intent of the standard to have light and shade between the buildings would be maintained. Remington stated the intent of the standard was being met. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2385 based on the equal to or better than standard. Remington found there was no detriment to the public good, and the intent of the standard was being met with the condition of the alley. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Lingle, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, Donahue, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2386 -- Approved. Address: 915 West Magnolia Street Petitioner: Sara Rathbum Zone: NC7 Section: 4.7(E)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from fifteen feet to five feet along the south lot line in order to allow a new detached, two -car garage building. The existing garage/shed in the middle of the lot will be removed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is the only feasible location for a new garage that would not require the removal of large, mature trees. Any other location would endanger existing trees, or require their removal. Additionally, this location allows for better utilization of the backyard area. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated there was an alley along the side of the lot. The existing location of the detached garage is in the middle of the yard, and will be removed. The Applicant is proposing to move the existing garage and construct a new two -car detached garage towards the rear of the property. Barnes noted that since there is not an alley along the rear lot line, the Applicant is required to have a fifteen -foot setback, however, the Applicant is requesting to reduce the setback to five feet. Barnes showed the approximate location of the new detached garage. Remington asked if the tree in the corner of the backyard would stay intact. Barnes replied the tree would remain as is. Donahue asked staff if there were an alley on the back of the property. Barnes responded there was not an alley to the back of the property. Applicant Participation: I ZBA Jun. 1, 2002 Page 4 Jim Finley, 915 West Magnolia Street, addressed the Board. Finley explained his hardship with the existing mature trees, and stated he would like to minimize the impact on the trees. Finley felt his proposal would not set a precedent. Finley explained that when the City put in the electric service for this part of Old Town, they ran the electric line for the house immediately east of his through his property. Applicant Finley stated that due to the existence of the electric line, he would like the Board to consider the setback request for not more than fifteen feet, but not less than five feet. Finley stated the setback would probably be at six or seven feet. Remington asked if there were an easement. Finley replied that he was not aware of an easement, and had not had the opportunity to check. Miscio asked Finley if he had a survey done on the property. Finley replied yes. Miscio responded that the survey should show any easements and/or right-of-ways. Lingle asked Finley if the note on the proposed plans stating that the roof pitch will be increased to 10112 were correct. Finley replied yes. There was a discussion held regarding what Applicant Finley was requesting for his variance. Miscio felt the Board should table the variance until Applicant Finley knew the specific setback distance he was requesting. Remington asked Applicant Finley what his timeframe was for building the garage. Finley responded he would like to begin work on the garage as soon as the Board made a decision. Board Discussion: Shannon agreed with Miscio that the meeting should be tabled. Stockover disagreed. Stockover stated he did not see a problem with approving the request at five feet, and felt at six or seven feet the setback requirement would be more in compliance. Remington agreed with Stockover, although he was concerned about the garage being built in an easement. Donahue was concerned about the electric line, and the easement that may exist, as well as the possible need for fire protection. Stockover asked staff if there were a requirement to have a twenty -foot driveway off of an alley. Barnes answered no, and stated a five-foot setback was required off of an alley. Stockover stated the building issues would be handled in the permitting process. Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2386 based on the hardship stated. Stockover stated the building could be built within five feet of the property line as long as the building is not in any existing or potential easements, and if there is an easement or if one needs to be dedicated, then the easement would determine the setback if it needs to be setback further than five feet. Stockover stated the request is not detrimental to the public good. Shannon seconded the motion. Barnes recommended that the Applicant speak with Doug Martine at the City's Utility Department. Vote: Yeas: Lingle, Miscio, Remington, Shannon, Donahue, and Stockover. Nays: None. 7. Other Business Zl_ une 13, 2002 Page 5 Barnes updated the Board regarding the Boards and Commissions Questionnaire. Barnes noted that a study session for City Council will be held July 23, 2002 and stated the Chairperson and Vice -chair Person should attend the study session. Barnes told the Board a code change is being proposed to change quorum requirements from three to four. Eckman stated the code change would triumph the bi-laws. Barnes noted to the Board that Appeal 2384, 907 Mathews Street, has been appealed to the City Council and will be heard on July 16, 2002. Meeting adjourned at 9:23 a.m. Steve i&nutoj, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator