Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/14/2000bTnutes approved by the Board at the February 8, 2001 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — December 14, 2000 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: William Stockover I Phone: 482-4895 (H) II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday December 14, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Pawlikowski Diane Shannon Martin Breth Andy Miscio William Stockover 1:107:11078 Steve Remington David Ayraud STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Sandra Kendrick, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover, and roll call was taken. F • . ZBA December 14, 2000 Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Breth to approve the minutes from the November 9, 2000 meeting. Board Member Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Board Members Shannon and Pawlikowski abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO. 2316--Approved Address: 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) Background: 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 noncomforming with a setback of eight feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See attached petitioners' letter. Staff Comments: Sandra Kendrick read a letter in support of Appeal No. 2316. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. The side street of the property is Olive Street. The proposed addition will extend out approximately four feet from the south wall and will line up with the west wall. The applicant also proposed a flat roof for the addition. In the NCL zoning district there is a minimum roof pitch of 2:12. Peter Barnes commented about the flat roof variance. When the code was amended in 1996 for the East Side/West Side neighborhood there were some ` • • ZBA December 14, 2000 Page 3 design guidelines added. One was requiring a certain pitch roof. The only way to vary from the code is if the addition matched the existing roof pitch. The code was also changed to allow a flat roof for a porch that also served as a floor or a deck for a second floor patio. This proposed roof will not be serving as a second floor patio. The current pitch of the roof, if the addition were to match the pitch, would block existing windows. Board Member Miscio asked if the code change regarding flat roofs is an engineering issue or an aesthetic issue. Peter Barnes stated that City Council wanted minimal guidelines in some parts of town to prevent steep roof or flat roof buildings unless it was something that already existed on the building. They were concerned about it changing the character of the home. It is an aesthetic issue. This particular building is over 50 years old and any exterior changes have to comply with the requirements of the City Historic Preservation Office. Applicant Participation: Laura Olive-Gaebler, 230 South Grant Street, had no additional information other than discussing the large apple tree to the west of the home that provides interest and shade to the yard and would prefer not to remove it. They have tried to stay within the existing walls of the house but because of the various elevation changes it was best to build an addition. The south wall will be two feet within the fence line and will not be flush with the existing wall which would be more aesthetically pleasing. A pitched roof would block the light into the bedroom window. Board Member Miscio asked for the square footage of the room addition. The applicant said it would be 14' x 16'. The addition would be approximately 10% of the total house square footage so the flat roof would be approximately 10% of the entire structure. Board Member Shannon asked if there would be access to the roof from the bedroom. The applicant said it had never been considered a deck. It will have a decorative railing. Board Discussion: Board Member Breth said the applicants have done a very good job of blending the addition to the existing home. Even though the code says the minimum roof pitch ZBA December 14, 2000 Page 4 is 2:12, there are certain cases where that can not comply. They can tuck this addition into a corner of the house without it protruding out. Board Member Miscio agreed. Since a small part of the house will have a flat roof, it will not have a negative impact. The neighborhood benefits when someone is improving an older home. Board Member Shannon made a motion that Appeal No. 2316 be approved for the two variances that are presented, one being the flat roof and the required setback based on the hardship of topography and existing footprint of the house. The motion was seconded by Board Member Miscio. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Shannon, Stockover, Breth, Miscio Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2317 - APPROVED Address: 948 Deer Creek Lane Petitioner: Joe Schlauer, owner Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(d) Background: 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 Hardshi 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 feasible location for a shed due to the existence of mature landscaping in the back yard. Staff Comments: Sandra Kendrick read a letter regarding Appeal No. 2317. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to the appeal. The shed has already been constructed and sits three feet from the fence which is on the property line. The ZBA December 14, 2000 Page 5 shed would be considered a structural addition and would therefore require a building permit and a setback of five feet. Board Member Shannon asked Peter Barnes to discuss the building code relative to this appeal. Barnes stated that while this shed is partially adjacent to the exterior wall of the garage, it is also adjacent to the exterior wall of living space. Living space and storage shed are two different occupancies and the building code does require a fire rated wall between the two. The applicant has complied with this requirement using the appropriate type of sheet rock on the inside walls. Board Member Miscio asked if there is any practical consequence that is an issue in this matter other than health hazard, fire hazard or jeopardizing someone's life or creating some grief in our community. Peter Barnes stated that the purpose of the code that requires setbacks is for health and welfare issues. The community has a standard that in order for people to enjoy their own private space they want to insure there is adequate space between buildings for access to light, air, ventilation and things of that nature. Board Member Breth asked if the letter from the neighbor was in favor or opposed to this appeal. Peter Barnes said it was a statement of fact indicating the distance from his house to the property line and from the shed. Applicant Participation Joe Schlauer, 948 Deer Creek Lane, stated that the neighbor, Mike Walters, submitted the letter to give the distances of the shed from his property. The shed that abuts the house has four independent walls and is not structurally attached to the existing home. It does meet code requirements. A permit will be pulled and the necessary inspections will be completed. Board Member Miscio asked if the shed would need to be removed if it does not pass the inspection. The applicant said it would. Board Member Miscio made a motion that the amendment be approved based on the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Board Member Shannon. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Shannon, Stockover, Breth, Miscio Nays: 5. ZBA December 14, 2000 Page 6 Other Business A discussion was held in regard to the amendment to the code pertaining to the equal to or better than the standard". This amendment will be voted on at the December 19, 2000 City Council meeting and if approved will go into effect December 29, 2000. Board Member Shannon asked if there was a date on the training session. Peter Barnes said it has not been set by the City Attorney's office as of today. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m. Wk.- L:=-- - William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator