Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/14/2000Minutes approved by the Bond at the November 9, 2000 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — September 14, 2000 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: William Stockover Phone: 482-4895 (H)11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday September 14, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 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. ZBA September 14, 2000 Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board member Shannon to approve the minutes from the August 10, 2000, meeting. Board Member Remington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Board members Ayraud, Breth, and Pawlikowski abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO.: 2307--Approved Address: 708 Peterson Street Petitioner: Debby Trinen, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required sideyard setback along the north lot line from five feet to one foot to allow a carport structure, which has already been built. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship - The home was built in 1910 and has a detached garage now used as a studio. The garage is approximately six inches from the north property line. The new carport utilizes the driveway, which already exists and initially served as the original garage. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Currently on the property is the attached carport. The approximate distance from the fence to the edge of the vehicle is approximately five feet, and that is what the carport would have to line up with to meet setback requirements. The carport is currently one foot from the property line. Board member Remington asked when the garage was built, and if a variance was required. Peter Bames stated the home was built in 1910 and he did not know if the garage was original to the home or built at a later time. The City of Fort • IA September 14, 2000 Page 3 Collins did not have a zoning ordinance until 1929. Anything constructed prior to 1929 would not be restricted by any zoning regulations. For a time thereafter there were setback exceptions for detached buildings in the older part of town. Board member Breth asked how the variance came to the Zoning Department's attention. Peter Barnes responded that it was drawn to the Zoning Department's attention by one of the building inspectors. The inspector noticed the carport being constructed. The owner had applied for a building permit. The Zoning Department indicated a permit could not be issued unless the carport was moved to comply with the five-foot setback or a variance was obtained. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Debby Trinen, addressed the Board. She did not realize a building permit was needed to put in a carport. The Applicant hoped the Board would allow her to keep the carport. If the Board approved the variance it would then be her intention to pave her driveway. Applicant Trinen considered herself to be a relatively responsible homeowner. She was not trying to create a problem. If the Board ruled that she would need to move the carport back five feet from the fence, she will have to tear the carport down because her car would not fit otherwise. Board member Ayraud asked if there were any problems with water run off. The Applicant responded no, and that the water runs off onto her side of the fence. The fence was there when she bought the home. Applicant Trinen does not know if the fence is on her property or her neighbors. She does not believe the neighbors have suffered from any hardship due to her carport. Board member Ayraud asked the Applicant how wide the lot is. Applicant Trinen bought the home approximately four years ago. The previous owner had subdivided the lot so the lot is currently a strange shape, although it contains 7000 square feet. It was originally a double lot. Board member Breth asked the Applicant if she had any intention of enclosing the carport. The Applicant responded that she did not. The carport's main function is to protect her vehicle from the sun, rain, and snow. Board Discussion: • 41BA September 14, 2000 Page 4 Board member Shannon asked staff if the carport was built according to standards. Peter Barnes responded that Applicant Trinen has been working with the Building Inspection Department, and he believed the Applicant has addressed all of those issues. A permit could be issued once this is resolved if it was granted in the Applicant's favor. Barnes believed the Historic Preservation office would also have to look at the carport. The Applicant responded that the Historic Preservation office has already looked at the carport, and they said it was fine. Board member Remington stated he was not opposed to approving the variance, although he thought it would be necessary to condition the carport to remain as a carport and having the current conditions maintained. Discussion ensued regarding conditions. Peter Barnes reiterated that the Applicant applied for a variance to reduce the setback for a carport. He believed it was not necessary for the Board to condition the motion regarding enclosing the carport, although conditions on the dimension of the carport may be necessary. Board member Breth made a motion to approve appeal number based on the hardship of a small irregular lot, and would like to condition it to the dimensions that are shown on the plans submitted by the Applicant. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Stockover, Shannon, Ayraud, and Remington. Nays: None. Appeal number 2307 was approved. 4. APPEAL NO.: 2310 — Approved Address: 1005 West Oak Street Petitioner: Reed Schachte, Owner Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(3) Background: • 41BA September 14, 2000 Page 5 The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the alley from five feet to two feet in order to allow a new, detached 2-car garage. The new garage will replace the existing detached garage that is located along the alley. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The front of the property is along West Oak Street, but garage access will be to the rear of the house. Applicant Schachte's garage will line up with numerous out structures along Oak Street. The old garage will be torn down. The new garage will be a twenty-two feet wide, 2- car garage. The current garage is a single car garage. Applicant Participation: Applicant Schachte addressed the Board. A letter from Sharon Hahn, of 1009 West Oak Street, was read showing her support of the variance request. Board member Breth commented that the drawing the Applicant submitted did not support his claim that moving the garage south three more feet would interfere with a mature tree. The Applicant responded that the drawing represents where the trunk of the tree is in the ground. The tree leans forward into the alley. There was clarification made between Board member Breth and Applicant Schachte regarding the new garage being set back two feet farther from the old garage's footprint. Discussion: Board member Breth stated this type of appeal has been seen often by the Board and he was in support of improving the property. Board member Ayraud made a motion to approve appeal 2310 for the hardship stated in the letter and landscape issues. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. ZBA September 14, 2000 Page 6 Vote: Yeas: Breth, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Stockover, Shannon, Ayraud, and Remington. Nays: Appeal number 2310 approved. 7. Other Business The memo prepared on June 28, 2000, by Paul Eckman was discussed. Staff will be presenting the code changes to the Planning and Zoning Board for their recommendation to City Council in approximately six weeks. It is important for the Board to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board as well as City Council as to whether or not the Zoning Board of Appeals is in support of these changes regarding expanding the grounds by which a variance can be approved. Discussion held regarding recommendation. The code change will be in effect for the first meeting in 2001(if passed). A training session will be held with the city attorneys office has to how the Board will need to qualify findings. 8. Election of Officers The September meeting is considered the annual meeting of the Board to select officers for the positions of chair person and vice -chair person. Chairperson Stockover asked if the voting should be shifted due to the terms being shifted. Peter Barnes talked to the City Clerk regarding this situation last month. The City Clerk's office suggested that the Board continue to have their annual meeting, and they will review it again next year to determine whether or not they want everyone to have their annual meetings earlier. Board member Breth nominated William Stockover to act as the Board's chairperson for the next year. Board member Miscio seconded the nomination. ZBA September 14, 2000 Page 7 Vote: Yeas: Breth, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Stockover, Shannon, Ayraud, and Remington. Nays: None. Board member Breth nominated Diane Shannon to act as vice -chairperson. Board member Remington seconded the nomination. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Pawlikowski, Misio, Stockover, Shannon, Ayraud, and Remington. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 a.m. . A� William Stockover, Chairperson /2� 19 c_t, _O�v Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator • • Reed Schachte � v3to 1005 West Oak St. Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521 416-0359 August 28, 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins Included here are materials for a zoning variance request for 1005 W. Oak St., Ft. Collins. The specific request is to waive the five foot alley setback for a new 22' x 22' two car garage I wish to build. The reason for the request is to save an old growth tree currently in the back yard. The trunk is approximately 4 feet in diameter at ground level and approximately 50 feet tall. My lot at 1005 W. Oak St. is on the north side of the alley. According to an Improvement Location Certificate drawn by a professional surveyor in 1996, my current old garage is approximately on the south property line at the alley, with no setback. In support of my request, I would like to point out that six other garages on the north side of the same alley behind the 1000 block of Oak Street also appear to have no setback from their lot lines, as they are all approximately on the same line as my current old garage. In short, if the variance request is granted, the new garage would be set back the same distance as the old garage, and the same distance as six other garages on the north side of the same alley. Included here is the following documentation: > A plot plan of my lot, drawn by me, with the proposed new garage included. > The Improvement Location Certificate drawn by a surveyor. > A list of names and addresses of all owners of record of real property within 150 feet of my lot. Thank you for your consideration. Reed Schachte