Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/14/1995ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 14, 1995 Regular Meeting - 8:30 am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 14, 1995 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Leiser, Elliott, Shannon, Breth, Felner, Gustafson, Huddleson. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Breth. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Support Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Peter Barnes Ann Chantler Paul Eckman The minutes from the November meeting were approved. Appeal 2154. 1208 West Oak Street by Mike Ryan and Linda Joyce owners approved Section 29-119(5). The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4.2 feet in order to construct a rear addition which would line up with the existing west wall of the home. ----- Petitioner's hardship: The lot is the older part of town and is narrow - only 50 feet wide. The existing house is already 4.2 feet from the west wide property line. The addition will line up with the existing wall of the home. Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this house was located in the older part of town and the house was already non -conforming. Zoning Board of Appeals December 14, 1995 Page 2 Linda Joyce, owner, appeared before the Board. She said they just want to add a porch to the back of the house that matches the porch on the front of the house. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson said this was a narrow lot with an existing home and moved to approve Appeal 2154 for the hardship stated. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Leiser, Elliott, Shannon, Breth, Felner, Gustafson, Huddleson. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2155 308 Park Street by Nancy Reed owner, approved. Section 29-459(1), ----- The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building (former storage/garage building) instead of within the dwelling. The home occupation is a computer based research, writing and editing service that us conducted solely by the owner/resident of the home. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The home is quite small - only 608 sq. ft. and there is very little extra room. The garage is about 60 years old, so the petitioner is not asking to build a new detached building to use, but rather wanting to use what is already there. If the home were in a newer sub- division where garages are attached, a variance would riot be necessary. ----- 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 the 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 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 new 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 Board of Appeals December 14, 1995 Page 3 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, said this house was located in the older part of town and explained the home occupation code. He explained in the newer part of town garages are attached, and if the this garage was attached, a variance would d not be needed. Nancy Reed, owner, appeared before the Board. She stated there is access to the back yard off the alley, but that is only used for her lawn work. She said she works alone in her home. She sometimes has one client at a time come to her home. Her home is small, only 600 square feet and when a client comes to her come, the client can see her entire home, and she feels it would be safer if she had her office in the detached garage. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson said this was not a self-imposed hardship; the Board has seen other cases similar to this in the older part of town. He moved to approve this appeal based on the fact there was an unfair burden to the owner with the detached garage. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Leiser, Elliott, Shannon, Breth, Felner, Gustafson, Huddleson. The motion passed. Appeal 2156, 718 Bear Creek Dr by Von and Carolyn Andrews. owners denied Section 29-133(4). The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 12'X15' sun room addition to be constructed on the north side of the house. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The addition would only be 8 ft. deep if the rear setback is complied with. The petitioners believe that an 8 foot room would not be an adequate size to be useful.. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said this house was located on a cul-de-sac and the sun room would be added to the back of the house. Zoning Board of Appeals December 14, 1995 Page 4 Carolyn Andrews, owner, appeared before the Board. She said the proposed sun room would be glass on three sides and the roof line would match the existing roof. She said for the cost of the construction, they would like to have as much space as possible for the room. She added the sunroom would not effect her neighbors. Board member Huddleson asked Mrs. Andrews to describe her hardship. Mrs. Andrews said the depth of her lot compared to others in the neighborhood is shallow and when the house was built it appeared the back setback was not as large as shown on the plot plan. Board chairman Breth said measuring the radius for this lot would be difficult and asked Barnes if the survey was inaccurate could that make the house non -conforming? Attorney, Paul Eckman, addressed the question. He said the house was placed on'the lot the only way it could, there was no "give" on the front or side setbacks and the house could not have been adjusted on the lot when it was built, so the non -conforming issue would probably not apply as a hardship. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Gustafson said the lot appeared to be deeper than some in this area, saw no hardship and would not support this appeal. Board member Huddleson moved to deny this appeal for a lack of hardship. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Elliott, Shannon, Breth, Felner, Gustafson, Huddleson. Nays: Leiser. The motion passed. Appeal 2157, 620 S Sherwood St by Mark Cucarola owner, denied Section 29-210(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north and south property line from 8 feet to 6 feet in order to allow a new 24' tall four- plex to be constructed on the lot. (Multi -family dwellings require a minimum side yard setback of 1 foot for each 3 feet, or fraction thereof, of building height, therefore, the required setback for the proposed structure is 8 feet.) 0 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14, 1995 Page 5 Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is narrow, 50' wide. In order to construct a roof line (hip or gable) which is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood structures, a height of 24 ft. results. Since the setback requirements for multi -family in this zone are based on height, greater side setbacks are required. To comply with the 8 feet on both sides would result in a maximum building width of only 34 ft., which would result in an unwork- able floor plan with minimal utility. ----- Staff comments: The variance request is one of 3 processes that the applicant must go through prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Landmark Preservation Commission will be dealing with the demolition of the existing home, and the Planning Department will be conducting an administrative review of the process as required by the NCB zoning district regulations. The administrative review does not necessarily require a hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board. Each of the 4 proposed apartments in the 4-plex contain 3 bedrooms. One letter signed by five neighbors was submitted in opposition of this appeal. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said this house is located close to the University, north of Laurel Street. He said the owner has to demolish the house that is there in order to build the 4-plex. He said there is an apartment building with 15 units next door but most houses are single family units and single story structures. The proposed 4-plex would have a parking lot that would be accessed off the alley. Board member Shannon asked if the houses in the neighborhood were rentals or owner occupied. Barnes said there was a mix. Mark Cucarola, owner, appeared before the Board. He said the reason he was seeking a variance was: the present house is in bad shape, he wanted to save the three large spruce trees, he was concerned about the parking, and he would like to build the 4-plex with a pitched roof so it would better blend in with the neighborhood. He said the Sherwood Condo's next door were 27' tall, the KOA fraternity house was 25' tall and the Larimer County Corrections facility was 25' tall. He submitted pictures of those properties to the Board. He said between 50-70% of the neighborhood was rental units. Zoning Board of Appeals December 14,. 1995 Page 6 Board member Gustafson asked Mr. Cucarola if he has considered making 2 of the units garden level. Mr. Cucarola said he had, but handicap ramping would then be an issue. Steve Olt, Current Planning Department, appeared before the Board. He said the Planning Department had not yet made any recommendations on this project. He said the Planning Department takes into consideration roof lines, architecture and block face. A flat roof does not fit into the character of the neighborhood. Karen McWilliams, Advanced Planning and Landmark Preservation, appeared before the Board. She said the concern her department had was how this would effect the character of the neighborhood. She said out of 39 houses they sampled in the neighborhood, 30 were historical and 9 new construction. The house located at 620 South Sherwood was built in 1895 and is in an historical area. She said when building something new, the character of the neighborhood should be considered and comparable to the other houses. She said the proposed 4-plex with a flat roof probably does not maintain the character of the neighborhood. Clark Mapes, Landmark Preservation Department, appeared before the Board. He told the Board this lot is not narrow, the proposed 4-plex does not fit into the character of the neighborhood, it is a built up block with doors and windows. He added even with the 3 '/z/12 pitch roof, it would not fit into the neighborhood. Board member Huddleson said this Board needed to focus on a hardship and asked if the City was putting a hardship on the owner by requiring a pitched roof. Cucarola said his goal was to build a 4-plex for student rental because of the housing shortage, the present house is deteriorating and he would have to spend a lot of money to fix up the current house. He added the character of the neighborhood should extend to a larger area and take into consideration all the apartment buildings and commercial buildings. Jeff Squires, 616 South Sherwood , appeared before the Board in opposition of this appeal. He said the proposed 4-plex is not in character with the neighborhood. He said the people who own homes in the neighborhood want to live there because of the character of the neighborhood. He said the owner of the property next door to him, 620 South Sherwood, does not take care of his property now and adding more tenants would be an intrusion and destructive to the neighborhood. He said in the past he has had problems with the neighbors trash, noise and safety and that affected his quality of life. He said the proposed plans for the 4-plex were cheap and tacky and that the owner had a self-imposed hardship by wanting to put so many dwelling units on this lot. Zoning Board of Appeals December 14, 1995 Page 7 Walter Squier, owner of 625 South Meldrum appeared before the Board in opposition of this appeal. He said his two sons live in his house on Meldrum and one of his concerns is traffic. He said his sons have at times not been able to get to work because of the problem of people parking in the alley and driveway, thereby blocking traffic. He added the owner of the lot has a self-imposed hardship because of his economics issues. He said there is no reason a duplex or tri-plex can't be built on this lot rather than a 4-plex. He said the only reason Mr. Cucarola wants this is for personal financial gain. Board comments: Board member Leiser said the code allows a 4-plex to be constructed with an 18' height. She said there should be no further discussion because the owner has other options and use of the land. Board member Gustafson said the proposed 4-plex is too much for the lot and the owner should redesign the plans. Board member Huddleson said the owner still had some other issues to address and it appeared he was running this up the flag pole to see if this Board would salute. Board member Gustafson moved to deny this appeal because of the detriment to the public good and because the hardship is self-imposed. Board member Leiser seconded the motion. Yeas: Leiser, Elliott, Shannon, Breth, Felner, Gustafson, Huddleson. Nays: None. The motion passed. Other Business: Barnes distributed the meeting dates and times of the 1996 Board meetings. The meeting was adjourned. Marty Breth, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin