Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Zoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/10/1986
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 10, 1986 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 10, 1986 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Walker, Lieser, Leis, Thede, and Lawton. Boardmembers Absent: Barnett Staff Present: Fernan, Barnes, Roy, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 12, 1986 - Approved as Published The minutes of the June 12, 1986 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1745 Section 118-41.1 (B), 118-41 (F), by Arthur Larry Schliske, 1401 Oxborough Lane - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required street side setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for a garage addition to a single family residence in the RLP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to add another bay to an existing two -car garage. This is the only feasible location for the addition. It will not interfere with required traffic site distances. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors. This variance was approved April 11, 1985, but expired before work could be started." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Inspector Anne Fernan reviewed the.appeal stating that this was a corner lot and the petitioner proposed to add on to the existing building. There was a similar variance granted for this addition last year at the April 11, 1985 meeting, but the appeal expired before work could begin. Doug Miles, representing petitioner Larry Schliske, spoke in favor of the appeal. The variance was approved a year ago and at the time the owner was not financially ready to go ahead with the project. The garage addition ZBA Minutes - Jul0y 10, 1986 Page 2 would be one story high and run the full width of the house. The pitch of the roof would be the same, an extension of the present roof. There were no specific plans approved last year, however, there are no changes in the basic proposal since last year. The existing shed will be removed, and the garage addition will take its place. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Leis stated that the appeal was granted last year, and because there were no changes, he saw no reason to deny the variance. Boardmember Leis made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis, Thede, Lawton. ,Nays: None. Appeal No. 1746 Section 118-41 (E), by Robert Slade, 1804 Sheely Drive - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet for a 10 foot attached garage addition to a single family home in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to add on a one car garage and the only logical place to add it is by the existing one car garage. This is a corner lot and although this is the legal rear yard, it functions as a side yard. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Officer Anne Fernan reviewed the, appeal stating that the lot was a corner lot with the legal rear yard functioning as a side yard. The petitioner proposed to build an addition to the existing single car garage and needed a variance to reduce the legal rear yard setback. Petitioner Robert Slade, 1804 Sheely Drive, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he would like to add on to the garage because his family owned two cars. There is no other place on the lot where a garage would fit. The design and construction would be like the house. The roof line, overhang, and eaves would be the same, and it would be painted to match. The addition would have a separate door the size of the existing garage door, and the inside area could be separated or combined - it had not been decided yet. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Walker stated that this was a typical corner lot situation, and that the intent of the Code would be met. Boardmember Walker made a motion ZBA Minutes - July*, 1986 Page 3 to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Leis seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis, Thede. Nays: Lawton. Appeal No. 1747 Section 118-81 (C) (1), by Eleanor Deines, 1900 Newcastle Court - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted not entirely within the dwelling. Specifically, it would allow a television and electronics service and repair business to be conducted in a detached garage. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to conduct a service business from his home. The home is existing with an existing detached garage. The petitioner does not own the home, therefore cannot add on to the dwelling. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Officer Anne Fernan reviewed the appeal, stating that this subdivision is unique in that all of the homes are built with detached garages. The petitioner desires to conduct a service business from his home, and if he uses the garage he will need a variance because the Code requires that the home occupation be conducted entirely within the dwelling. Petitioner Eleanor Deines, 1900 Newcastle Court, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the home was rented before they realized that a variance would be needed to operate a business out of the garage. Traffic would be minimal, because her husband offers free pick-up and delivery. Few people bring things to the house; on the average, one or two cars a day stop by. Boardmember Thede asked if the address of the home would be advertised. Mrs. Deines replied yes. Boardmember Thede pointed out that because the address was advertised, they could not be sure how much traffic the business would generate. Mrs. Deines stated if it got to be too much traffic they would rent a space away from the house. Boardmember Thede asked what would be considered too much traffic. Mrs. Deines replied that a car every half hour or hour would be enough business to warrant renting a space somewhere else. Zoning Officer Fernan reviewed the parking requirements for a home occupation, stating that each single family home was required to have one off street parking space for the home, and enough additional off street parking to meet the needs of the business. This home had a two car wide driveway which would allow one space for the owner and one space for the client. ZBA Minutes - July 1986 Page 4 Mrs. Deines stated that there would be no employees other than her husband. They did not plan to put a sign up at this time. Ms. Fernan stated that the maximum sign allowed at the home would be 2 square feet. Boardmember Walker asked if there would be any outside storage. Mrs. Deines said no. Boardmember Lawton asked if there were any other home occupations in the neighborhood. Mr. Barnes stated that there were, but not necessarily in garages. Mr. Tom Stallmann, 3312 Birmingham Drive, spoke in opposition to the appeal, stating that the neighborhood already had a lot of traffic and he was concerned about the increased traffic generated by the business. Mr. Stallmann was also concerned about what type of business would move into the house when Mr. and Mrs. Deines moved out. He stated further that there were about ten other neighbors who were opposed to the variance who did not attend the meeting. Boardmember Walker stated that he would be in favor of granting the variance for this specific business so that if the Deineses moved the variance would lapse. Mr. Walker said that Mr. Stallmann should be aware that if this was an attached garage or in a basement there would be no need for a variance. Zoning Officer Fernan pointed out that Mrs. Deines had already been issued a home occupation license to operate out of a room in the home. There is no Code violation as long as no more than one care at a time comes to the home in connection to the business. They were simply asking to be allowed to move the business from the home to the garage. City Attorney Roy addressed the Board in reference to the issue of limiting the variance to a particular business for a particular family. Mr. Roy stated that a variance cannot be made personal to the a_oplicant. However, the application could be limited to the type of business if the Board felt that it alone had certain characteristics that made it acceptable. There was much discussion of the possibility of limiting the business to pick-up and delivery only. Ms. Fernan pointed out that the business already had a home occupation license that allowed clients to come to the home, with the limitation of only one car at a time. Boardmember Leis asked where the delivery vehicle would be parked, stating that if both the family cars were parked in the drive, there would be no room for a client to park. Mrs. Deines stated that she planned to work outside the home and her car would not be parked at home during the day. That left room for her husbands's vehicle and one space for clients. Boardmember Lieser commented that the business was already being conducted out of the home and there was not a lot of response from the neighbors, so apparently there was not much of a problem. If they moved the business into the garage they would have to follow the same parking restrictions. Boardmember Walker thought that the parking restrictions on the existing ZBA Minutes - July'RO, 1986 Page 5 0 home occupation would address the neighbors' concern with the traffic problem and they would have some recourse if problems arose. Boardmember Thede thought the hardship was self-imposed because they were renting the house and could relocate to a house with an attached garage. Boardmember Leis asked if the variance was granted, would Mr. Deines retain the right to do business both in the home and in the garage. Ms. Fernan replied that use of both would be allowed as long as no more than half of the dwelling unit was used for the business. Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lawton. Nays: Walker, Lieser, Leis. Motion defeated, 3-2. Boardmember Leis made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the home occupation be limited to a pick-up and delivery only type business. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis. Nays: Thede, Lawton. Motion carried, 3-2. Appeal No. 1748 Section 118-41.1 (B), 118-41 (E), by Jerry and Juanita Harmon, 613 Skysail Lane - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 7.5 feet for a gazebo in the RLP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioners have designed a landscape plan for their property and aesthically this is the best location for the gazebo. ---Staff recommendation: None." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Officer Anne Fernan reviewed the appeal stating that the home is newly constructed and the homeowners have designed an extensive landscaping plan. They feel that this location for the gazebo -type structure is the best one. The structure will not be enclosed, but because it is over 7 feet high and over 120 square feet area, it is required to comply with the setback requirements. Petitioner Jerry Harmon, 613 Skysail Lane, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the patio will be covered with a lattice roof over a set of posts. There will be no sides to the structure. The patio is about 300 square feet, a hexagonal shaped concrete pad with a reflecting pool at the base. There is a fairly steep slope in the corner of the lot and the landscape plan is designed to allow only a minimum lawn. The height of the overall structure is about 8'2". Because of the slope of the lot, there is a change in elevation of 3 feet so the height differential of the structure would be about 5 feet to the adjoining property. The design was reviewed ZBA Minutes - July-10, 1986 Page 6 by the Landings Architectural Committee, and Mr. Harmon was not aware that a variance would be needed until the contractor applied for a permit for the gazebo. Boardmember Walker stated that a landscape plan is very flexible, and he saw no hardship. Ms. Fernan stated that the contractor knew that a variance was needed before the poles were installed, and that he would have to remove them if the variance was denied. However, she had no contact with the landscape designer. Mr. Harmon stated that the contractor knew of the necessity of a variance for the poles. However, the hardship was that the patio and pool had already been poured before he knew there was a problem. Ms. Fernan stated that a building permit was not required for the concrete patio. Boardmember Thede asked what could be legally done to cover the patio at this point. Ms. Fernan stated that the structure would have to be kept less than 120 square feet in area and 7 feet in height to be allowed in the same place. Boardmember Walker stated an option would be to cover only the lower half of the patio, which would meet the Code. Boardmember Thede stated that although the petitioner did not understand the setback requirements, the design professionals did. Mr. Harmon replied that Bath did the landscaping, following the design plans approved by the Landings Architectural Committee. The petitioner relied on them to cover Code requirements as well as aesthetics. Boardmember Thede thought that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Walker agreed. Mr. Harmon asked for clarification on the code restrictions. Ms. Fernan stated that the if structure was 7 feet tall or 120 square feet in area, it would have to meet the setback requirements. Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance because the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis, Thede, Lawton. Nays: None. No. 1749 Section 118-41 (C), by Jerry Nix, 1416 W. Mountain - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to move a house onto a vacant lot which is part of the older part of town that was originally platted with 50 foot lot widths. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. Nothing can be built on this lot without a variance. Reasonable use of the property cannot be denied." No notices were returned. One letter was received. ZBA Minutes - July*, 1986 • Page 7 Zoning Officer Anne Fernan reviewed the appeal stating that the lot was located in the older part of town platted with the nonconforming lot widths. The minimum required lot width in the RL zone is 60 feet, and this lot is only 50 feet. They are requesting a variance on the lot width, however, they meet all the other setback requirements and lot area requirements. Petitioner Jerry Nix, representing the Brenkert Development Corporation, spoke in favor of the variance stating that they proposed to move the colonial style home located just north of Rolland Moore Park to this location. The house is 28 feet tall, about the same height as the adjacent buildings. There may be a garage, accessed from the alley. The home would remain an owner occupied single family dwelling. Bill Stuart, 1420 W. Mountain, spoke in opposition to the appeal, stating that he and his wife own the property just west of the lot in question. They have an excellent neighborhood and want to keep it that way. The property on the other side, 1412 W. Mountain, just barely meets the 5 foot setback on the side. They have no objection to a single family residence, but were concerned that the home is so large that it could be converted into apartments or a rooming house. Also, traffic is a problem in the neighborhood, and they were concerned with the effect such a large home would have on traffic. Zoning Officer Fernan stated that the lot is located in a RL zone which is zoned for single family dwellings only. There is no way there could be a rooming house or a boarding house there without it going through an approval process with the Planning & Zoning Board. There are no use variances that could be granted, and a planned unit deveopment would be very unlikely to be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board for a site this small. As far as the parking is concerned, they are required to have one off-street parking place. Mr. Nix stated that they had no intention of putting anything other than a single family dwelling into the neighborhood. A good deal of thought was put into the location of the house. They wanted to locate it in a neighborhood where there were other classic homes, and chose this neighborhood because the height and the character of the surrounding homes are somewhat similar. Boardmember Leis asked if the variance could be tied to a particular home. Mr. Nix stated that the property was under contract subject to two criteria, the approval of the variance, and the financing. The 50' x 180' lot was platted way before the 60 foot minimum lot width was required by the City of Fort Collins, and if the contract was not to go through he thought it would be a disservice to the owner if the variance was tied to this specific dwelling. Mr. Nix stated that there are many houses on the West Mountain area on 50' x 180' lots, and that they weren't asking for anything out of the ordinary. ZBA Minutes - Ju1P0, 1986 • Page 8 City Attorney Roy stated that the variance could be tied to the specific house. Although beneficial use of the lot could not be denied, the Board was entitled to review each application on its own merits with regard to its particular impacts. The hardship standard to be used says that in granting a particular variance, any detrimental effects to the neighborhood should be considered. That can't be done in the abstract. Each plan needs to be reviewed as it is presented. Mr. Roy stated that he would support the Board's attempt to condition approval to this particular house, not to preclude beneficial use of the lot in the future. Boardmember Thede stated that in many instances when this particular variance was being considered, plans of the house were submitted to the Board. The decision is tied to what is presented. Mr. Barnes added that there were other instances where the variance was granted before the house plans were drawn up, and the variance was approved with the condition that the setback requirements were met. Boardmember Walker stated that he was familiar with the house and thought that it would fit in with the neighborhood. This was a common variance request, and he did not have a problem with it. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the the previously described house, known as the Scott Brody house, currently located on S. Shields be the one moved onto the lot. Boardmember Leis seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis, Thede, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1750 Section 118-41.1 (B), 118-41(D) (E), by Mike Smilie, 2786 Nottingham - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and the required rear setback from 15 feet to 6 feet for a single family dwelling in the RLP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a corner lot with some configuration problems which makes it almost impossible to build upon without variances. This particular building placement is most logical and works best for the lot. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. Since the house will face the legal side yard, the legal front and rear will function as side yards. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Officer Fernan reviewed the appeal stating that this was a corner lot with Hastings Drive as the legal front. The Code requires that the setback be 20 feet from the legal front, and 15 feet from the legal rear. In this instance the house will be facing Nottingham and it is unable to meet the 20 foot setback from Hastings and the 15 foot setback from the legal rear. Mr. Smilie is requesting a reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet. ZBA Minutes - July 0, 1986 • Page 9 It would be difficult to get any house on this particular lot without having to request some sort of setback variance. Mike Smilie, representing Miller Development, spoke in favor of the variance stating that they did not actually own the lot, but a potential buyer wanted to buy the lot and build on it. They were not aware that there was a problem until they applied for a building permit. The lot is 10 feet shorter on the Hastings measurement than it is on the Nottingham measurement. The existing houses that are on that loop face Nottingham, so this house would be in conformance with the others on the street. Mr. Smilie stated that even if they tried to build with Hastings as the legal front, there would be some problems getting the 15 foot rear yard setback. The practical width of the lot is about 48 feet wide at the rear. The lot bells out towards the front, but realistically the 48 feet is what there is to work with. Mr. Smilie didn't think it was the intention of the design engineer or the developer to have this be a Hastings fronted lot, it was an inadvertent error. There are some strange roadway configurations in that area to allow space for a detention area along Drake Road. Boardmember Thede asked how many lots were available in that area. Mr. Smilie stated that there was only one other lot still available in that specific area. The owners wanted a corner lot with a Nottingham Street address, and basically this was the lot they wanted. The only house that could built on this lot without a variance would be only 20 feet wide, and the neighbors would object. Most of the houses in the neighborhood are valued at $95,000 to $125,000, with a square footage of 1600 - 2000 square feet. A variance would be needed for only a 1200 square foot house. Boardmember Lieser stated that she had no problem with this variance request. Boardmember Thede stated that she had a problem with the developer. The developer should have considered the con -figuration problems when it was subdivided. Code requirements should have been considered. Boardmember Lieser stated that she thought the builder was trying to meet the intent of the Code by meeting the proper setbacks. Basically, they were just asking to change the address from Hastings to Nottingham. Boardmember Leis stated that he has seen a lot of situations like this, and that it is impossible for the developer to catch every mistake. The existing lot would impose a hardship on anyone who wanted to build on it. Boardmember Thede asked why the lot could not be reconfigured. Mr. Smilie replied that reconfiguration would involve tearing out curb and gutter, and road base, relocating utility lines, and replatting the entire subdivision. It was not just a matter of a few thousand dollars, but would be a major expense. Mr. Smilie pointed out that if the lot was smaller, it would work. If 20-30 feet were cut out, shortening the frontage on Nottingham and making a longer one on Hastings, then Nottingham could be the legal front of the lot. It's not a small lot - 7000 feet is a good sized residential lot. • ZBA Minutes - Jul,, 1986 Page 10 Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship of the unusual configuration of the lot. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis, Lawton. Nays: Thede. Appeal No. 1751 Section 118-81 (C)(1), by Douglas Wolenetz, 1604 Remington - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted not entirely within the dwelling. Specifically, it would allow an upholstery business to be conducted in a detached garage. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to purchase this older home for his dwelling. The detached garage is existing and it would be difficult and impractical to add on to the home for the business. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." One notices were returned. Two letters were received. Zoning Officer Anne Fernan reviewed the appeal stating that the home is in an older neighborhood and has an existing detached garage. The petitioner desires to use the garage for his in -home business. Since the Code requires that an in -home business be conducted entirely within the dwelling, a variance is needed to operate the home business out of the garage. Petitioner Douglas Wolenetz, 3565 Windmill, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that up until last month, he lived about three blocks from the property in question and ran a business out of his attached garage. He never had a complaint in the year and a half he was there. Mr. Wolenetz went to the neighbors and discussed his 'plans before the notices were sent out and nobody objected. Mr. Wolenetz stated that he mainly upholsters furniture, reupholstering a car once every three months or so. He has a contract to buy the house contigent upon approval of this variance to run his home business out of the garage. The traffic for the existing business is minimal, because he picks up and delivers the furniture. Fossil Creek Galleries delivers furniture to be upholstered on occasion - about once every three weeks. Mr. Wolenetz has been looking for a home to purchase for a year and a half. He likes the neighborhood and would like to purchase this particular home. The Board discussed the parking situation. There is an apartment in the house, and two parking spaces would be required, one for each dwelling unit. In addition, if Mr. Wolenrtz wanted to have any drive -up traffic in connection with his business, he would need a third parking space. Currently, his business would be restricted to pick-up and delivery only unless another parking space is added (there is room on the lot). ZBA Minutes - JulY41O, 1986 Page 11 Cl Ruth Rumley, 1535 Remington, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that she lived across the street from the property and wanted some further information about the business regarding the hours of business, days of the week he was open, signage, exterior storage, number of employees, and if an automobile is upholstered, where it will be parked. Mr. Wolenetz stated that he has no employees. If he worked on an automobile he would either leave it in the driveway or pull it into the garage, but no upholstery work would be done outside. Storage would be in the loft in the garage. (Ms. Fernan stated that the exterior storage was included in the APO notice in error.) The hours vary according to business, but he does not usually work past 8:00 p.m.. He does business five days a week, and sometimes on Saturday. Mr. Wolenetz stated that he uses power tools inside the garage, but has the door shut so no one can hear him. He was running his business for a year and a half in the house he was renting with no complaints. He would like to have a 2 square foot sign as allowed by Code. Boardmember Walker remarked that he would not be allowed to park the automobile in the driveway while he was working on it, because he had to allow the space for tenant parking. Ms. Rumley stated that her main concern was to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. She also asked if home occupation licenses could ever be denied if there were too many on one street. Each home occupation increases traffic and changes the appearance of the property. The cumulative effect of many home occupations on one block would be to turn a residential neighborhood into a commercial one. Ms. Fernan stated that if the home occupation was being conducted within the dwelling and met all the conditions of the Code, it could not be disallowed. Mr. Barnes stated that if many people in the neighborhood applied for a variance to have a home occupation in a detached garage, perhaps there could come a point where granting the variance would be detrimental to the public good. The Board would have cause to deny such a variance. City Attorney Roy agreed that the above standard should be applied, although any differential treatment among applicants must be justified with some real difference of circumstances under which the application is submitted. Mr. Roy said that he thought the cumulative affect of a number of home occupations operating out of garages could be taken into consideration with subsequent applications, and could be considered as a difference in circumstance. Boardmember Lieser asked if there were other businesses operating in the neighborhood. Mrs. Rumley replied that there were four businesses within 3-4 blocks of the house, some in detached garages and some in the home. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Wolenetz if he planned to work with the garage door open in the summer when it was hot. He pointed out that one of the conditions of the home occupation license was that no offensive noise, ZBA Minutes - Jul• 0, 1986 • Page 12 glare, or odor be noticeable beyond the property line. Mr. Wolenetz replied that he would not make any more noise than a homeowner making repairs. Mr. Barnes stated that the difference was that that a homeowner had the right to operate power tools for his own personal use, hobby, or home repair. Home occupations are a privilege in the Code to allow business to be operated out of the home in residential neighborhoods where ordinarily businesses are not allowed. Therefore there are strict limitations that apply to a home occupation that do not apply to the homeowner in order to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Boardmember Thede stated that the existing apartment does add some traffic and that she had a problem with putting a business and a rental unit at the same location. This created a situation of overcrowding, and she felt that the neighbors needed to be considered. Ms. Thede also felt that the hardship was self-imposed in that Mr. Wolenetz hadn't bought the house yet and had other alternatives. Boardmember Walker pointed out that the property was located in the RM zone and the apartment is a legal use. Boardmember Lawton stated that the petitioner did some good preparation by putting a clause in his house contract providing that he did not have to buy the house if the variance was denied. He showed good faith by approaching the neighbors and asking them how they felt about the variance, and it was up to him to work out the parking situation and to comply with the Code. Boardmember Walker stated that his concern was the automobile reupholstering. Mr. Walker thought that if an autombile were to be upholstered, the vehicle should not be stored outside. Zoning Administrator Barnes replied that they could condition the variance such that the business be limited to household furniture or things other than automobiles. Mr. Wolenetz stated that he had no objections to restricting his business to preclude automobile upholstering because there was not enough money in it and his specialty was furniture. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that autombile upholstery be excluded. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Lies, Lawton. Nays: Thede. Appeal No. 1752 Section 118-41 (F), by Fred Gile, 1305 W. Mountain - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would reduce the required sideyard setback from 5 feet to zero feet for a detached garage in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to replace a very old existing non -conforming garage which actually encroaches on the adjacent property with a new garage, but feels that complying with the setback requirement would eliminate too much of his backyard. ZBA Minutes - JulAO, 1986 • Page 13 ---Staff recommendation: Denial." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Zoning Officer Anne Fernan stated that the Code requires that in the RL zone the side yard setback be 5 feet from the property line. In this instance the petitioner desires to replace an existing garage with a new structure and set it at the property line. He has requested a variance from the 5 foot setback to a zero setback. The existing garage actually extends onto the neighbor's property. Petitioner Fred Gile, 1305 W. Mountain, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he has one of the few short lots on West Mountain. Mr. Gile proposed to build a new garage to replace an existing substandard garage which encroaches on the adjoining property. He was requesting the setback variance in order to save as much of the back yard as possible and still provide a direct approach from the driveway to the garage. Mr. Gile also had future plans to build an addition off the back of his home and the variance would provide him the room to do it. The new garage will be 18 x 28' if finances allow, but he would like to be able to build a smaller one without having to be granted a new variance. Boardmember Thede stated that there appeared to be enough room to move the garage over five feet and still have access from the driveway. Mr. Gile replied that he was asking for the setback variance for aesthetic reasons as well as for conserving back yard space. The Board asked about the size of the old garage as compared to the new garage. Mr. Gile stated that the existing garage dimensions were 12' 3" by 37' 3" and he planned to build a new 18' x 28' garage. Boardmember Walker stated that the current garage takes up about 444 square feet, and the new garage will take up 304 square feet, so Mr. Giles was ab.ready gaining back yard by building the new garage. The area of the back yard would not be affected appreciably if the garage was set back 5 feet to conform to Code. Mr. Gile felt that it would interfere with his future plans to build an addition on to the back of the house. Boardmember Leis stated that they had to consider the variance's effect on the adjoining property. A garage built too close to the property line could affect the neighbor's use of his yard. Mr. Gile stated that his neighbor had no objection to the variance, and in fact his neighbor was present at the meeting to speak in favor of the appeal. Boardmember Lawton pointed out that the although his neighbor had no objections to the variance, he could sell his property and the new owner might not like the arrangement. Boardmember Leis asked if the new garage had an overhang, and if it would be over the property line. Mr. Gile stated that the overhang was 12" and it would be totally within the property line. Zoning Officer Fernan stated that the setback was measured from the foundation wall, so that Mr. Gile was actually asking for a variance of 4 feet rather than 5 feet. ZBA Minutes - Jul 00, 1986 • Page 14 Mr. Edward Leo, 1307 W. Mountain, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he wasn't aware that the existing garage was partly on his property until the plans were drawn up for the new one. He stated he had no objection to Mr. Gile's new garage sitting right on the property line. He considered it an advantage because it would serve as a privacy barrier. Also, having a five foot setback would create a space near the garage that would be of little use. Mr. Leo stated further that his shed (that will probably be reviewed by the Board next month) sits about 3 feet from the property line. Boardmember Walker asked if a one hour fire wall would be required on the one side if the variance was approved. Ms. Fernan stated yes, but the Building Inspection Department would enforce that requirement. Boardmember Leis stated that the hardship was that it was an exceptionally narrow lot, and that he would be willing to grant the variance. Boardmember Walker stated that he would be willing to grant a 3 foot variance. That would allow Mr. Gile to build the smaller sized garage and not encroach any further into the yard than the larger one. Mr. Gile stated that he would like to have the provision to build the larger garage it financing allowed. The Board felt that that the size was not the issue, as long as the setback requirements were met. Boardmember Walker felt that at least a 3 foot setback was needed from the property line. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve a variance with the condition that the sideyard setback would be decreased from 5 feet to 3 feet. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Leis, Thede, Lawton. Nays: None. Other Business: Election of new Vice Chairman to replace Steve Dodder, who resigned in July. Boardmember Lawton was unanimously approved as Vice Chairman until the September 1986 meeting, when new chairmen will be elected. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman n Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb n RECEIVED JUL 1 1 198E 7, /9f e Ae4,0 >-hl, / r)lltfj? SUtx J, �l6�i �UL S�t2Lc-S AtqN Fj;wNAtq Po. i3ox 6-eo FT-, aiX.L_1 m5, L� 8U522 !Re I. AM Cr i ANN CLeANdR Dame's - re4q/�nr 117 2 WR PtfcNs DiscussioN ©rt iTUL`! -3) = A4M W.PuTi"C, Ti40 1.6T me To s,K°ZESS A7 t-eguHCs T PFZCtvdt6- T Q4 Neff t)cjq52€ l�n /-CM e- ausi ` gs5 , —T- A t T}}e MY EQ of T +15 PlWAaZTY, SUPP02 EEgAfgOR MN05 4- [49�k OFFW-r— To Use 7t� Home Fc�P- A &)siNe--cE LocrynoN, -rFer,-t- 77 r3r TttE- ir2CREdi-5e' iN —/P-NFFIc (OCUL0 F3F- No Mel THI1N IF A ousf NE5s I41aY op- 19mu-)AY a( e,2E CW,rffl W &)-r nfO !-W e . 1V0TW1YCG E -1 egOg To 7VE /J ME COOW-0 eE RtFPE,Frer 7VA" eV 5777rcC> COIYOi T CP^ 5 — IYO ASCUtitULR i1�r-� mF `I P� ,51S 1 &XIS E-rc, cUCUL'o oc:,Ug . f4c) FUMis OR + P. VCATTZ-b�4et,TIAL Ei= e--Cn 64)OUL9 d3F- 1a263Q-(r. .l �LCUr/1�vleau�� 71 1 %lte lcl/tiG 1�Y3R� rwye /-74e A-PFFAL . ON ITULY 101 fggSC AT f`/ 50' "A't, WintsiDEA /wY 6Plrel(r)ne ON 7-170 MITTS2 SS r-�tce PC- Brenkert Development Corporation 721 Dartmouth Trail Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525 June 26, 1986 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 300 West LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521 Gentlemen: Please accept this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals in regard to the single family residential building lot now located between 1412 West Mountain Avenue and 1420 West Mountain Avenue. The lot is in the RL zoning district and measures 50 feet wide by 180 feet deep. We are requesting that you grant a variance from the minimum 60 foot lot width to a 50 foot lot width to facilitate the placement of a single family home on the lot. All other City of Fort Collins criteria for the placement of a single family home on the lot will be met. The general West Mountain neighborhood has many fine older homes on 50 foot wide lots, as the area was platted before the current zoning ordinances were established requiring the 60 foot minimum lot width. Dennis R. Brenkert has purchased the property located at 2105 and 2001 South Shields Street and platted the property into a professional medical and dental office park now approved by the City of Fort Collins and known as the Spring Creek Professional Park. Dr. Brenkert has executed a purchase contract for the West Mountain Street lot in order to save the classic colonial home at 2105 South Shields. His objective is to move the colonial home onto'a new basement foundation on the West Mountain Street lot in early August. The colonial home will blend nicely into the neighborhood next to the other classic older homes in the 1400 block of West Mountain Avenue. The home will be remodeled and then offered for sale as a single family residence. Please find enclosed the required application form and filing fee of $25, eight copies of the proposed plot plan, the list of all property owners of record within 150 feet of the subject property, and the legal description of the subject property. We will look forward to appearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on its July loth meeting in regard to this variance request. Sincerely, / / I - I '� J r M. Nix t for Dennis R. Brenkert CITY OF FORT OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTION June 30, 1986 COLLINS RECEIVEC JUL 1 4 198.E LEGAL NOTICE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of the regulation in the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins would result in exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of Code Section(s) 118-81 (C) (1) (6) has been requested by: Douglas ldolenetz for the following described property: 1604 Remington The variance would allow an upholstery shop home occupation to be conducted not entirely within the dwelling and to allow exterior storage. Specifically, to allow the home occupation to be conducted in a detached garage. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 1751 As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of the variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursdav, July 10, 1986, 300 West Laporte Avenue. Those interested may appear at"this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in.writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need special assistance to participate, please call 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator at 221-6760. /7/86- Reing our treet, we h-ve no r7rF MDORARY ASIS. erty or' ,rs in < rY 1 OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTION Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator property is Toonted in the 1600 block of Mathews objection to the granting of this variance ON - Hortever, rye feel that the feelings of all the 1600 block of Remington should be respected. V. F. v P. P. Frazee � 1605 r2atheewws St. Ts .`bv .v: ♦:'^tea ..:...__ t _^"r. ,r+ . ..��' '� 300 LaPorte Ave.. P.O. Box 580 . Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 . (303) 221-6760 RECEIVED JUL 1 1 1988 C �k'ppic 175� )Tu C� IL�� L' cs:-�2c�r� 2—L� Cc���n.L�� �r��.�,n,a."• " �v i.LiAlt,F, tJL •�'L�-t ��-Ft-@.11 'L G. TL�, 0 ?2ectal�v s�z%o oYllrrnk-c�it Ltit �L L, �-Y�-Q. pi-Lc�G •fji (� Z C (�, v G\ � C (4 L Fl.e..te., .�I,Q�rt, �71L9/Le, ecb22• C1�- T�to�t c (,L ct, t�L Lo L a t ' ✓� to �t .2z�.-u�L�' •,�pz Gie��' 'Z�L+�- Ct��,ea„�