HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/13/1987I
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — August 13, 1987
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
August 13, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of The City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by Boardmembers Walker, Nelson,
Lawton, and Coleman.
Boardmembers Absent (Excused): Thede, Barnett and Lancaster.
Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, Zeigler and Goode.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of July 9, 1987 — Approved as Published.
The minutes of the July 9, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously approved.
Appeal #1828 Section 118-91 (A), by Averum Eakin, owner, 123 E. Drake
Road — Approved.
--The variance would allow a home occupation sign for a chiropractic
office to be approximately 9 square feet instead of the 2 square feet
allowed by code. The home is located in the RL zone.
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The business is located on Drake
Road, a major arterial street. It is 300 feet from the intersection of
Drake and College and borders commercial uses and zones. Since Drake is
very busy at this location and speeds are somewhat faster than in a
normal subdivision and many turning movements are required by
motorists, a larger sign will help with traffic safety and provide more
visibility for the business across several lanes of traffic. The
petitioner has just moved here from Florida and would like to be able
to use this existing sign made of cypress wood."
Petitioner Averum Eakin spoke in favor of the variance stating that he
proposed to install a sign made out of cypress. He felt that a potential
safety hazard existed because his business was difficult for his customers
to locate because of the heavy traffic and higher speeds in this area.
Original plans dated 1979 were submitted, showing that the property at the
time of planning was built with future commercial potential.
Boardmember Walker felt that the request was reasonable because of the
other Home Occupations along Drake road which had been granted variances in
the past.
Boardmember Lawton asked if the height was a problem for traffic safety.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the sign would be more than 50'
from the intersection, which meets all criteria of the sign code, thereby
causing no traffic hazard.
ZBA Minutes - Augus•3, 1987 •
t Page 2
Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance because of the
hardship stated. Boardmember Coleman seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker,
Nelson, Lawton and Coleman. Nays: None.
Appeal #1829 Section 118-41 (E) by William and Dorothy Heitman, owner 1201
Del Mar - Approved with conditions
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the
south lot line from 15 feet to 4.5 feet for a 2-car garage addition to
a single family home in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is a corner lot and the
house faces the legal side yard, so although this is a request to
reduce the rear setback, the addition is actually being built on the
side yard, which requires only a 5 foot setback. The petitioner would
like to be able to park a boat and a car in the addition and an 18 foot
wide garage is necessary to allow a 16 foot wide door. This is the only
practical place to build the addition."
Petitioner Dorothy Heitman, owner appeared.
Boardmembers Coleman and Lawton were concerned about the landscaping that
would be removed and also the overhang of the roof. Boardmember Coleman
asked if the overhang would encroach upon the easement. Zoning
Administrator Barnes stated that the plat did not show an easement; but he
would check it again. City attorney Eckman stated that an easement would
take precedence if the board were to approve the variance. If an easement
exists a permit would not be issued.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance with the condition
that the addition design match the rest of the house. Boardmember Walker
seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton and Walker. Nays: Coleman and Nelson
The motion did not pass.
The Boardmembers had some discussion as to why the garage addition needed
to be so long. Mrs. Heitman was asked to come back to the podium to answer
questions. Mrs. Heitman explained the need for the 36' addition was to
store the boat toward the back of the garage with the car parked in front
of it.
Boardmember Coleman made a motion to approve the variance with the
stipulation that the addition doesn't exceed a 12' set back in the rear.
This would allow the applicant to build a one -car garage addition if they
so desired. The variance was approved with condition for the hardship
stated. Yeas: Walker, Nelson, Lawton and Coleman. Nays: None.
Appeal it 1830 Section 118-41.1 (B), 118-41 (E), by Jim and Karen Allen,
owner, 1754 Waterford Lane - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 12 feet to allow an existing deck to be enclosed and converted into
a family room. The house is located in the RLP zone.
J
ZBA Minutes - August*, 1987 •
Page 3
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing deck is about 4 feet
above grade and the family room conversion will not be any larger or
closer to the rear property line. In fact as much of the deck as
possible will be used as the floor in the new family room. The house
backs up to a detention pond so this variance will not affect anyone
else."
Petitioner Jim Allen spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the only
practical place to expand is in this location.
Boardmember Coleman asked if expansion to the east was an option? Jim
Allen replied that he planned on following the existing roof line and also
would utilize the lumber from the existing deck for the new construction,
so that adding on to any other area besides the location in question would
be too expensive and impractical, and would use up a good portion of the
yard on the east side, which is the largest play yard area for his four
children.
Boardmember Nelson noted that he had driven through the area and had not
seen any other conversions, but that all of the rear lots appeared similar.
He was concerned that the board might be setting a precedence if the
variance was approved for other homeowners to apply for the same variance.
Zoning administrator Barnes stated that this lot has the shallowest yard in
the area because of its location in the bend of the cul-de-sac.
Boardmember Coleman made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
that the lot is irregular and placement of the house on the lot causes
hardship for expansion on the rear of the house. Boardmember Walker
seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lawton and Coleman. Nays: Nelson.
Appeal #1831 Section 118-91 (F), by Dan Jensen, owner -developer - 2600 6
2601 Yorkshire - approved with condition
---The variance would allow 2 subdivision identification signs at an
entrance into the subdivision instead of the one sign allowed by code.
Specifically, the variance would allow 2 signs at the intersection of
Yorkshire and Drake, one on each side of Yorkshire, to identify the
Quail Hollow subdivision.
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The subdivision has two entrances
off of Drake. The developer desires to identify Yorkshire as the main
entrance and will not sign the other one. Putting a sign on just one
side of the street would look unbalanced, and aesthetically it is
better to have two signs. If the lots on each side of the street were
in a different subdivision filing, the code would allow the two signs.
Both signs together are only 32 square feet total, whereas the one sign
allowed by code could be 35 square feet, bigger than the two signs put
together."
Petitioner Dan Jensen spoke in favor of the appeal so as to enhance the
entrance of the subdivision.
J
ZBA Minutes - Augus&, 1987 •
1 Page 4
Boardmember Coleman stated that the zoning code was interpreted as meaning
that one identification sign at an entrance was allowed.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
pleaded with the condition that only the two permanent signs on Drake road
be allowed and not any future signs at other entrances. Boardmember
Coleman seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Nelson, Lawton and Coleman.
Nays: None.
Appeal #1832 Section 118, by Thomas Fisher, owner, 1519 Luke Street -
--The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 10 feet and the street side yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet for
a storage shed located in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to place
the shed in this location because existing landscaping would
necessitate that the shed be located on the middle of the yard
otherwise."
Petitioner Thomas Fisher, owner spoke in favor of the appeal stating that
he intended to match the materials used on the shed with the existing
house, both paint and shake shingles. The setback variance would allow the
shed to be placed in an area of his lot that would accommodate the existing
landscape and his RV and boat.
Zoning Administrator Barnes explained to the Board that the shed was
started without a permit and is currently only 3' from the rear property
line, but is located in a utility easement and will have to be moved.
Boardmember Nelson made a motion to deny the variance because the hardship
is self imposed. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: None.
Nays: Walker, Nelson, Lawton and Coleman.
Appeal #1833 Section 118-40(B), by Dick Rutherford, Surveyor, 3602
Richmond Drive - Denied.
---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 100,000 square
feet to 24,800 square feet for an existing single family home in the RE
zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner has not been able to
sell the house with so much land in its current configuration. She
would like to reconfigure the land into two parcels, and the parcel
with the house would have 24,8000 square feet, and the undeveloped
tract would have 102,920 square feet. Since the property is on the
corner of two arterial streets, it may be more appealing in separate
tracts."
Petitioner Dick Rutherford spoke in favor of the appeal stating the
specifics of the reconfiguration of the land.
ZBA Minutes - August& , 1987
Page 5
Reese Christiansen representing Moore & Company realtors appeared to speak
in favor the appeal to state the hardship for the owner who is having
difficulty selling the property in its present configuration.
Howard Zollner, property owner to the south spoke against the variance
stating that an approval of the appeal would set a precedence for other
homeowners to sell off parts of their land. His concern is for the
hardship that the residents of the subdivision would suffer, not the owner
who is selling her property for profit. Also appearing against the
variance Bill Marlett, property owner to the southwest feels that the
intentions of this petitioner are strictly for commercial development. Anna
Mae Zollner also spoke against the variance. Homeowners united in
opposition to the appeal are: Jennifer Trippel, Marilyn Bollman, Jean
Bettger, Pat Gorman and Margaret Gorman.
Boardmember Lawton commented on the hardship as being strictly financial
and self imposed.
Boardmember Walker stated that the property is unusual and should have to
go thru a more rigorous process such as a P.U.D., which would not only meet
the needs of the owner, but also meet the needs of the neighborhood.
Boardmember Nelson felt that the board was being asked to make an
exception, and in this case an unfair advantage over the residents.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to deny the appeal for the absence of
hardship. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. Yeas: None. Nays:
Walker, Nelson, Lawton and Coleman.
Respectfully submitted,
Lloyd Walker, Chairman
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator