HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/28/1996APR 021996
Im
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
March 28, 1996
8:30am
11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11
Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr.
229-1629(w) 226-5101(h)
A special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 28, 1996 in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present:
Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Gustafson, Huddleson. Board members absent: Michael Felner.
Staff Present: Peter Barnes, Building & Zoning
Ann Chantler, Building & Zoning
The minutes from the February meeting were approved.
Appeal 2158 825 Laporte Avenue by Dave and Diane Caddell approved with condition
Section 29-459(1).
The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building
(former garage building)instead of within the dwelling. The home occupation is for real
estate appraisals and for distribution of health and beauty aids to distributors. The
business is conducted solely by the owners/residents of the home.
------ Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner is not asking to build a new detached
building for use, but rather wanting to use what is already there. If the home were in a
new subdivision, where garages are attached, a variance would not be necessary. The
business complies with all other aspects of the ordinance. There is no attached garage
on the property.
----- Staff comments: The Board has heard a number of requests for similar variances in
the old part of town where the majority of garages are detached. Generally, the Board
has recognized that older properties are not on the same "playing field" as newer homes
that typically have attached garages. Most of the variances heard regarding this matter
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 28, 1996
Page 2
are to allow the types of home occupations where a variance would not be necessary
if someone wanted to do it in an attached garage in a newer subdivision. The Board
has typically granted these variances when the use is proposed in an existing, older
detached garage, and where there is no attached garage on the property. The Board
has been more reluctant to grant variances to allow someone to construct a new
detached building for a home occupation.
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, said the house was located toward the rear of the property,
(called an alley house) was in the older part of town , and had a detached garage. Barnes
reviewed the view of the Board on past variances with houses in the older part of town.
David Caddel, owner, appeared before the Board. He said the business his wife does will have no
traffic and his business will only have an occasional client at the house. He said he does most of
his work by fax. He said his hardship was that the garage was not attached to the house as in
newer subdivisions.
No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal.
Barnes reviewed the home occupation code for the Board.
Board member Shannon moved to approve Appeal 2158 for the hardship that the detached
garage already exists and that the home occupation use does not change. Board member Lieser
seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Gustafson, Huddleson. Nays: None. The
motion passed.
Appeal 2163 401 West Oak Street by Scott DeDolph approved Section 29-210(5).
----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line
from 7 feet to 4 feet in order to allow a second floor addition to the building.
The new second floor wall would be constructed directly above the rear 14 feet
of the existing south wall of the building, and would convert an upstairs storage
area to an office. The variance would also reduce the required side yard setbacks
from the north lot line from 15 ft. to 12 ft. to allow a new stairway enclosure
that would be accommodate a relocated stairway.
Zoning Board of Appeal
March 28, 1996
Page 3
----- Petitioner's's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. The building footprint would
not change. The building is existing at this setback along the south side. The new
"turret" stairway enclosure would be 12 feet from the north lot line, but would be
32 feet from the curb, which is a greater setback than would result in a newer part
of town with 15 ft. compliance. A part of the existing north wall is already existing
at a 10 ft setback, so the new enclosure would be setback further than the existing
structure.
Staff comments: The property line along Oak Street is 20 feet behind the curb. In
other parts of town, the property line is closer to the street. Therefore, the stairway
addition on the north side will be a considerable distance from the street. The Board
has generally taken this into account when an addition will not be closer to the
street than an existing portion of the building.
Zoning Administrator, Barnes said the house was located on the corner of Oak and Meldrum and
the current south lot line setback was 4 feet. He explained as of March 1, 1996, the zoning
ordinance (formula) had changed and the appellant was asking for a setback of 4'.
Two letters were received in support of this appeal. (Attached)
DeDolph, owner, appeared before the Board. He said he presently has two other attorneys that
have their offices in the building. He said the building needed re -roofed and that set this process
in motion. He said the conference room was upstairs and because the stairway is so steep and in
bad repair he moved the conference room to the main floor. He explained how the reconstruction
of the stairs would take place and how it would affect the "footprint" of the building.
No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal.
Board member Gustafson said the narrowness of the lot and the placement of the existing
building was a hardship.
Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2163 for the hardship stated. Board member
Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Gustafson, Huddleson. Nays:
None. The motion passed.
Appeal 2164 4137 Warbler Drive by Dave and Melissa Mielke approved. Section 29-
511(1).
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 28, 1996
Page 4
----- The variance would allow a portion of a new 6 foot tall fence to be located within 20
feet of the front property line, instead of the 4 ft. Maximum height allowed for fences
closer than 20 feet to the front lot line. The lot is a corner lot, and the legal front is
along Troutman, but the house faces Warbler. Therefore, the portion of the fence in
question really functions as a side and rear yard fence, not a front yard fence.
----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter
----- Staff comments: This situation occasionally occurs on corner lots where
the house faces the legal street side lot line, rather than the front. The 75' sight
distance requirement is the critical al part of the fence code for corner lots. The
petitioner's fence location will meet that requirement.
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, explained the fence code. Barnes said the legal front was on
Troutman although the house faced onto Warbler. He told the Board the house across the street
had the same fence located on the lot like the appellant was requesting, but needed no variance
because it faced on the legal front lot line.
Dave Mielke, owner, appeared before the Board. He said he would like to use his back yard, like
others can and by putting up the fence he would still leave adequate side yard space and would
not present a visual problem for traffic.
No one was present in favor of in opposition of this appeal.
Board member Huddleson asked Barnes if the house faced Troutman, he would not need a
variance. Barnes confirmed that.
Board member Gustafson said the hardship was how the house was built on the lot. Gustafson
moved to approve Appeal 2164 for the hardship that the legal front was actually the side lot.
Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Gustafson,
Huddleson. Nays: None. The motion passed.
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 28, 1996
Page 5
Appeal 2165, 226 Whedbee Street by Alicia Werner, approved with condition. Section 29-
459(1).
The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building
(Old Model T" garage) instead of within the dwelling located on the lot The home
occupation is for a studio use that will be for the purpose of making bed linens and
home textiles. The linens will be shipped out when completed.
Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner is not asking to build a new, detached
building for use, but rather wants to use what is already there. If the home were in
a newer subdivision where garages are attached, a variance would not be necessary.
There is no attached garage on the lot.
Staff comments: See comments for Appeal #2154 above.
One letter was received in favor of this appeal (attached).
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, stated this house was in the older part of town and had a
detached garage as most of the other houses in the older part.
The owner, Alicia Werner, appeared before the Board. She said she bought the house 2.5 years
ago and the house is very old. The detached garage is only half roofed and leaking, the
foundation is in need of repair, and there are no headers above the windows or doors. She said
overall the garage would be repaired and cleaned up.
Ethel Taylor, 518 East Olive appeared before the Board. She said she was concerned about alley
traffic, shipping trucks, if this variance was approved.
Werner stated she takes her shipping to UPS, no trucks would use the alley, in fact, she would be
the only person using the alley.
Barnes reviewed the home occupation/parking code.
Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2165 for the hardship that the garage was
already existing with the condition that when the repairs are done, the garage is not to be
expanded, and that the use be limited to the petitioner's use. Board member Lieser seconded the
motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Gustafson, Huddleson. Nays: None. The motion passed.
•
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 28, 1996
Page 6
Barnes reviewed an appeal from the last meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
Martin Breth, Chairman
dam. 6 w,-
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator