HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/09/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting - July 9, 1987
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
July 9, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Nelson, Barnett,
Lancaster, and Lawton.
Boardmembers Absent (Excused): Walker, Thede, Coleman.
Staff Present: Fernan, Eckman, Brayfield.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of June 11, 1987 - Approved as Published.
The minutes of the June 11, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously approved.
Appeal #1822 Section 118-43 (E), 118-43 (F), by Robert Mustain, 121 N.
Whitcomb - Denied.
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 10 feet, and the required side yard setback along the north lot line
from 5 feet to 1 foot for a detached 2-car garage/carport in the RM
zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner has a number of
vehicles, including a school bus. They would like to have a building
large enough to accommodate them. They need to reroute the sewer from
the house to the alley and feel a 13 foot easement is necessary for its
maintenance. Therefore, the building needs to be as far north as
possible."
Petitioner Robert Mustain spoke in favor of the variance stating that he
proposed to demolish the existing garage and build a new garage/carport to
house several vehicles, including a school bus. Access to the
carport/garage would be off the alley, which has very little traffic. Mr.
Mustain stated that the garage could not be moved closer to the house
because of it would interfere with future plans for an addition to the
house, and the garage needed to be as far north as possible to allow room
for maintenance of the sewer line.
Boardmember Barnett asked why the portion of the garage that did not house
the school bus could not be sized down to eliminate the need for a
variance. Mr. Mustain replied that he wished to put on a gambrel roof,
which would not be possible with an irregular shaped garage.
Boardmember Barnett stated that the building footprint is about the size of
a three car garage. He felt that the 36' width could be fit on the lot and
ZBA Minutes - JuW , 1987 •
Page 2
still meet the required setbacks, and that the hardship was self-imposed.
Boardmembers Lawton, Nelson, and Lancaster agreed.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to deny the variance because the hardship
was self-imposed. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. Yeas:
Lancaster, Barnett, Lawton, Nelson. Nays: None.
Appeal #1823 Section 118-44 (F), by Steve Olt with Resource Consultants,
402 W. Mountain - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the
north lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet for a new detached garage/storage
building for Resource Consultant's office in the RH zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing garage is old and
small, and the petitioners desire to remove it and build a new one to
meet their needs. The old one currently encroaches on the adjacent
property, so that problem would be resolved. If the 15 foot rear
setback were met, a variance would be needed to reduce the south side
setback because the lot is very narrow at the place where the building
is proposed."
Petitioner Steve Olt spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the existing
garage is too small to house all the equipment associated with their
surveying business, which creates security problems. They plan to demolish
the old garage and build a new 2-car garage to house one company vehicle
and their business equipment. The proposed location is the best one
because it allows space for the 2-car garage and one parking space for
company vehicles. The remainder of the lot is client parking for the
business, so the garage cannot be moved up on the lot.
Boardmember Barnett asked about the surrounding land uses. Mr. Olt replied
that the two houses to the west were single family residences, currently
rental properties, and the property to the north was a Knights of Columbus
facility.
Boardmember Lawton stated that the garage could be sized down to 20' x 22'
and not need a variance. Mr. Olt stated that the company preferred to
build a standard size two car garage so that it could house 2 cars if
necessary. Boardmember Lawton felt that if the intent was to store one
vehicle and some equipment, the 20 x 22' garage would be large enough and
would still meet code. He felt that the hardship was self-imposed.
Boardmember Lancaster agreed that the hardship was self-imposed, but could
see the advantage of building a standard 2-car garage rather than a 1 1/2
car garage. Boardmember Nelson pointed out that there were four other
garages in the immediate area that have less setback than required by code.
However, he felt that the 20' garage would be adequate for their needs and
still meet code requirements.
Boardmember Barnett stated that the hardship was the unusual shape of the
lot, and the fact that there was no other place to locate the garage. He
ZBA Minutes - A09, 1987 •
Page 3
said that the garage could be moved farther south to allow for more
setback, but the 4' variance would not have a significant impact on the
neighborhood. Mr. Olt stated that moving the garage further south would
eliminate the extra parking space that they were trying to maintain for
company use. Mr. Olt stated further that they had an agreement with the
owners of the adjacent property that if the P.U.D. was,ever developed that
they would provide access from the alley for joint parking. Moving the
garage further south would eliminate this space.
Boardmember Lancaster stated that it would be in the interest of the
neighborhood to allow space for the alley access in the event of future
development. Boardmember Lancaster moved to approve the variance for the
hardship of the unique shape of the lot, and the need to allow alley access
for future development of the adjacent property. Boardmember Barnett
seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Barnett, Nelson. Nays: Lawton.
Appeal #1824 Section 118-41(E), 118-41(F), by Michael Gebhardt, 600 E.
Swallow Road - Denied.
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the east
lot line from 15 feet to 6 feet, and reduce the required side yard
setback along the north lot line from 25 feet to 6 feet for a detached
storage building for a church in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In
addition, if the building were located so that it complied with both
required setbacks, it would be encroaching onto a driveway, impeding
circulation. The proposed location is currently a landscaped area in
the corner of the parking lot. The existing fence and hedge will
remain and will serve as a buffer to adjacent lots. This variance was
granted but they were not able to build and the variance expired."
Zoning Officer Fernan reviewed the variance stating that this is a corner
lot, and the legal front is Stover, making the east property line the legal
rear. The code requires that for churches the sideyard be a minimum of 25
feet. The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the required rear
yard setback from 15 ft. to 6 ft. and the required side yard setback from
25 ft. to 6 feet for a detached storage building.
Petitioner Michael Gebhardt spoke in favor of the appeal stating that when
the original building was designed, there was no provision for storage of
maintenance equipment. Many locations have been considered for the
building, and most of the areas- do not have enough room, or would block
windows of classrooms. They decided against putting the building in the
parking lot because of traffic visibility problems. Mr. Gebhardt felt that
the proposed location is the best, from both architectural and logistical
standpoints. They have contacted the neighbors, and they have no
objections. The same variance was approved last year, and the contractor
put it off until the bad weather hit. He wasn't aware of the six month
limitation on the variance. The contractor is now ready to build, and they
request that the same variance be approved.
ZBA Minutes — JuA , 1987 •
Page 4
Boardmember Nelson asked if this project was being done in relationship
with some other jobs at the same time. Mr. Gebhardt replied that they were
doing some other construction at the same time.
Boardmember Lawton stated that last time the variance was heard a neighbor
objected because it would block the view of the mountains. Mr. Gebhardt
stated that they have seen the plans and no longer have any objections.
They were concerned that if the shed was built out in the parking lot it
would block their view more than the proposed location.
Boardmember Nelson asked if the landscaping would be continued around the
building when it was done. Mr. Gebhardt replied that it would be
landscaped, and that there was no change from the plan that was submitted
last time. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the building would make it easier for
them to maintain the property in good condition.
Boardmember Lancaster stated that there was not a lot of landscaping in the
parking lot, and they would lose more if the shed were built on the
proposed location. He asked if they planned to install additional
landscaping. Mr. Gebhardt stated that they would install plantings around
the building, and hedges in the back. Boardmember Nelson said that he
drove by the site and there is a large well maintained hedge on both
property lines.
Boardmember Nelson stated that the safety hardship was legitimate. Also,
the large amount of equipment that needs to be stored is a hardship.
Boardmember Lancaster said that there were other places on the lot to put
the building that would comply with code and also take care of the safety
hardship. This may be the most practical or the most desirable as far as
the church is concerned, but it is not the purpose of the board to
determine the most desirable location. The board must decide if there is a
hardship that cannot be worked out in some manner that meets the zoning
code. If there is no other option available, then the variance should be
granted.
Mr. Gebhardt said that they investigated each section of grass that would
meet the existing zoning code, and the only places where the shed would fit
have problems. There is a satellite dish in one spot, and on the north
side of the building there are windows, which would obstructed by the shed.
The storage shed would look out of place in front of the street sides of
the building. Mr. Gebhardt said that they considered all of these
locations because they would prefer to be within the zoning code.
Boardmember Barnett said that he had a problem with the fact that the shed
will be put on the largest landscaped area within 120 feet, the most
logical corner for accent plantings. Mr. Barnett thought that several
parking spaces could be used to construct a pad, and the shed located
there.
Mr. Gebhardt said that they needed the parking spaces. They used the
majority of the spaces during regular meetings, and there are number of
ZBA Minutes — Jul*, 1987 •
Page 5
meetings throughout the year when the lot is so full and that cars park on
the street. They did not want to eliminate parking for the storage shed.
Boardmember Barnett said that it comes down to the priority of uses on the
site — storage vs. parking vs. landscaping. There are some attractive ways
of designing the building so that the setback requirements are met, but at
the cost of some parking. Mr. Barnett felt that that there was a way to
place the building so that the traffic visibility problem would be solved.
Zoning Officer Fernan suggested that the shed be located the required 15'
from the rear property line, and 15' from the the side property line. This
proposal would only iequire a 10 foot sideyard variance, and would locate
the storage shed in the desired corner. Very little parking space would be
eliminated by this proposal. The Board then discussed several alternate
locations with Mr. Gebhardt.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to deny the variance for lack of
hardship. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster,
Barnett. Nays: Lawton. Boardmember Nelson abstained.
City Attorney Eckman stated that an abstention was considered to be an
affirmative vote. Mr. Nelson then disqualified himself from the vote. Mr.
Eckman asked on what grounds. Mr. Nelson said on grounds of membership of
the church — conflict of interest. Mr. Eckman said that if there was a
conflict of interest, then his participation does not exist in this matter.
Three members make a quorum — so there is a 2-1 vote in favor of the
motion. Mr. Lawton said that Appeal 111824 has been denied.
Appeal #1825 Section 118-41 (E), 118-41 (F), 118-21 (C), by James Newell,
1438 W. Oak — Approved.
--The variance would reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 7 feet
for a 16' x 28' detached garage and would reduce the side yard setback
from 5 feet to 3.6 feet for an addition to a single family dwelling in
the RL zone. The variance for the house addition would be extended
from 6 months to one year.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner desires to build a
detached garage, but if he meets the required rear yard setback, most
of the back yard will be eliminated. Additionally, an existing
telephone pole would prevent entrance to the garage. The owner also
desires to add on to the existing house which is setback only 3.6 feet
from the property line. The owner desires to extend the variance from
6 months to one year for the addition because he will not be able to
begin construction within the six month period.
Boardmember Barnett disqualified himself from discussion of this appeal due
to a potential for conflict of interest.
Petitioner James Newell spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he
planned to build in two phases, first the garage, and then the bedroom
addition to the house. He asked that the variance be granted for one year
ZBA Minutes - Julk, 1987 •
Page 6
to allow time to finish the second phase. The garage will be about 25'
from the neighbor's garage and will have the same architectural style as
the house. The driveway would be about 9' from the existing telephone
pole. The garage will be 28' wide to allow room for a workshop as well as
room to park one car. Mr. Newell stated that he talked to the neighbors
about the plan, and they have no objections.
Boardmember Lawton felt that the setback variance for the bedroom addition
was necessary so that it could line up with the house. However, the garage
could be setback 12' instead of the requested 7 feet and still allow room
for the utility pole. Boardmember Lancaster stated that he did not have a
problem with the request because it was a corner lot.
Boardmember Nelson stated that the garage could be moved up on the property
and be attached to the house addition. He did not see any hardship for the
7' setback because the garage could be setback as far as 11' and still not
interfere with the telephone pole. He felt that there was a legitimate
hardship for the variance for the bedroom addition.
Mr. Newell stated that setting the garage back 11 feet would reduce an
already small yard space and also create a "no man's land" between the
garage and the property line. He planned to have a garden, but the space
would be on the north side of the garage which would be unsuitable for
garden because of lack of sunlight.
Boardmember Lancaster said that although the 11' setback would be less of a
variance, there would not be significant gain, and it might be a detriment
because such small strips between the garage and the property line tended
to accumulate clutter. He felt that it would be a better use of the
available space to have the 7' setback.
Boardmember Nelson pointed out that maintaining the space between the
garage and the property line was the homeowner's responsibility. He did
not see that it was a valid hardship.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster,
Lawton, Nelson. Nays: None.
Appeal #1826 Section 118-41 (B), 118-41 (C), 118-41 (D), 118-41 (E),
118-11 (Dwelling), by Jeffery Lebesch - Denied.
---The variance would reduce the lot area from 6000 square feet to 3760
square feet, the minimum lot width from 60 feet to 55 feet, the minimum
front yard setback from 20 feet to 4 feet for a new home, and the rear
yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet, for an existing garage, to create
a lot in the RL zone. The variance would also allow a dwelling to
contain only 672 square feet instead of 800 square feet as defined in
118-11.
Petitioner's statement of hardship: The prospective owner desires to
split an existing unplatted lot into two lots. Due to the location of
ZBA Minutes - July 9, 1987
Page 7
the existing house and garage as it is not possible to create a new lot
that will meet minimum requirements. The variances are necessary
before the Planning & Zoning Board can approve a subdivision."
Zoning Officer Fernan stated that the petitioner wishes to subdivide an
unplatted lot and obtaining the variance is the first step in the process.
If approved, the project would then be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning
Board. The major thrust of the variance was the requested lot area
reduction, and because of the size of the lot, there is no way to subdivide
without a variance.
Petitioner Lebesch spoke in favor of the variance. The lot in question is
currently vacant, and has been an eyesore to the neighborhood. Mr. Lebesch
wishes to purchase the property and to build a small energy and space
efficient house. The construction is wood frame, 1 1/2 story, with natural
wood siding. The house would be 672 square feet in area, including the
loft area. The property in question is currently part of the lot at 1220
LaPorte.
Boardmember Lawton asked why the new property line is so irregular. Mr.
Lebesch said it jogs around to create a 5' setback for the existing garage
at 1220 LaPorte. Mr. Lebesch said that the five foot easement was
requested by city utilities for service for 1220 LaPorte Avenue. Ms.
Fernan stated that there was a very large public right-of-way along
Columbine Court in front of his property, so his front property line is
setback quite a distance from the curb.
Boardmember Nelson asked how the existing right-of-way affected Mr.
Lebesch's plans to build. Mr. Lebesch said that the area of the
right-of-way is about 1000 sq. feet, and if the city kept it, he would need
to arrange to put his driveway through the right -of way. However, there
was some possibility that the City will vacate the right-of-way and some
question as to how much of it would go to 1220 LaPorte, and how much would
go to the adjacent property owner on Columbine Court. Ms. Fernan pointed
out if the whole right-of-way was vacated to the adjoining property on
Columbine Court, the lot would be without street frontage, which would be
an illegal situation.
Bob Hollister, 201 Columbine Court, spoke in opposition to the variance. He
felt that the lot was too small for a house, and property values would go
down in his neighborhood if such a small house was built on a small lot.
Mr. Hollister stated further that there is a curve on Columbine Court, and
if cars parked on the street in front of the new house, a blind corner
would be created. Mr. Hollister pointed out that there were other lots in
town where a house could be built with no variances so he did not see the
hardship.
Boardmember Lawton asked if there was any way that the house could be built
on the lot without a variance. Zoning Officer Fernan replied that there
was no way to to build without a lot area variance. Boardmember Lancaster
pointed out that if the right-of-way was vacated to 1220 LaPorte the lot
area would be large enough to build a second house without a variance.
ZBA Minutes - Jul 9, 1987 •
Page 8
Boardmember Lawton said he did not see a hardship. There was a hardship in
the size of the lot, but only if the lot was approved. But as the lot
exists, there is no hardship. Boardmember Nelson agreed, stating that the
Board was being asked to give five different variances, none of which
brings the property up to the standards of the existing neighborhood.
Boardmember Barnett said that if there is hardship, it is that the lot at
1220 LaPorte approaches 12,000 sq. feet, and by the time you add their
responsibilities for maintaining the adjacent right-of-way, it's at 12,000
square feet. Further, the location of the house on the lot is such that
you can't logically split it into two separate lots that are near 6,000 sq.
feet. The petitioner is proposing to subdivide and to build a 672 sq. ft.
house, and that hardship is self-imposed.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to deny the variance for lack of
hardship. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster,
Barnett, Lawton, Nelson. Nays: None.
Appeal #1827 Section 118-41(F), by Bob Mooney, for Architectural Resource
Group, 330 S. Grant - Approved with Condition.
---The variance would reduce the minimum street side yard setback from 15
feet to 12 feet for a garage addition to a single family dwelling in
the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: In order to get a useable deck
size and attached garage off the back of the house and to have the
addition more or less line up with the existing house it is necessary
to reduce the required setback."
Petitioner Bob Mooney said that this is an older home, and owner intends to
add on an attached garage to replace the small garage at the back of the
property. He also plans to add on a breakfast area. The addition is on
the side street side of the house, and in order to get some usable side
yard, they plan to move the garage towards the street. There are other
areas of the yard that currently project into the 15 foot setback such as
the front deck and the bay window. The depth of the garage is very narrow
to pick up as much side yard, therefore they have increased the width of
the garage for storage purposes.
Mr. Mooney said that the owner intends to work with the existing
architecture, and is trying to avoid a long straight addition to the house.
Mr. Mooney explained the design considerations which necessitated the 3'
foot variance, which included designing the door into the breakfast nook
addition which would not appear to be the front door, and to keep the
addition from looking like an obvious add -on.
Boardmember Nelson pointed out that the addition would not extend any
further into the 15' setback than points of the existing house. Mr. Mooney
said that the addition would be further back than the front porch, which
has only a 9'6" setback. (The house was built in 1907 before the setback
requirements existed.)
ZBA Minutes — July 9, 1987 •
Page 9
Boardmember Barnett stated that a car parked in the driveway would block
the sidewalk. Mr. Mooney replied that they were looking into moving the
sidewalk back at that point, stating that because there is 20'from the
property line to the curb there is adequate distance for a jog in the
sidewalk.
Zoning Officer Fernan stated that moving the sidewalk would be done through
the Engineering Department. They would approve it, and the owner would
have to bear the cost of it.
Ron Baker, owner of the property, spoke in favor of the variance, stating
that he and his wife bought the property nine years previously, and had
since done extensive repairs and remodeling. Their number one priority is
to maintain architectural integrity in the neighborhood. For that reason
they are going for a brick face on the addition. Without the requested
variance they would get that straight line look across the back. Also,
they would have to install a door there, which would be confused for the
front door. Mr. Baker said that they do not intend to park the car across
the sidewalk, and would be willing to bear the cost of moving the sidewalk.
Boardmember Barnett stated that the proposed design is an excellent
solution to the design problem. The hardships are that the lot is very
narrow, and the distance between the property line and the street is so
wide.
Boardmember Lawton felt that the variance should be conditioned on city
engineer's approval of moving the sidewalk.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to approve the variance for a one year
time period with the condition that the sidewalk issue be resolved with the
city engineer. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster,
Barnett, Nelson, Lawton. Nays: None.
Meeting Adjourned.
(tiNilt,! b7�iZ�r ..�J
Anne Fernan, Staff Support
Dave Lawton, Vice -Chairman