Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/13/1993ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 13, 1993 Regular Meeting 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 13, 1993 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Members absent: Anastasio, excused, Perica. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gustafson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Peter Barnes Ann Reichert Paul Eckman The minutes from the April meeting were approved. Appeal 2064. 229 Park Street, by Marc Fryer, owner, approved. Section 29-459(1). The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building. Specifically, the variance would allow a potters studio in the existing detached garage and a kiln in a proposed addition to the rear of the garage. The property is located in the NCM zone and the use will comply with all the other requirements of the home occupation ordinance. Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ----- Staff Comments: The Board has granted variances to allow the use of detached buildings for home occupations when the nature of the business is not conducive to being conducted in the home. An additional consideration has been that in the older parts of town, the garages are generally detached, whereas in the newer parts of town the garages are attached. If the garage was attached a variance would not be needed. Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 2 Two letters were received. Copies are attached. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained the home occupation ordinance. He stated if this home was located in a newer subdivision and the garage was attached to the house, this homeowner would not need a variance. Marc Fryer, owner, appeared before the Board. He explained the design of the kiln and why it was not possible for him to have the kiln in the basement of his home. He explained the proposed building that would house the kiln. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated he was convinced Mr. Fryer could not do his business in the home and moved to approve Appeal 2064 for the hardship stated. Board member Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2065. 1920 Sheely Drive. by Allen Curtis, architect, denied. Section 29-133(3). The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 16.feet in order to allow a solarium addition to the front of the existing home. The house is located in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The solarium will house an exercise "swimex" pool. In order to allow room for the equipment access, the addition needs to be 15 feet in depth. The addition qualifies as a solar energy system, and this is the only location that the addition can be built in order to put the "sun's radiant energy to a beneficial use." ----- Staff Comments: The code allows situations that "hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system..." to be considered a hardship. Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 3 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the solar energy definition and stated this addition does meet those requirements. Allen Curtis, architect, appeared before the Board. He stated this addition would serve two parts, one: passive/active solar and two: health/exercise swimex pool. He stated the pool needs to be installed below grade, and has to be constructed on the south side. To add on to any other side of the house would be a hardship because it is solar. Board member Huddleson asked Mr. Curtis if this addition would be a solar system without the pool. Mr. Curtis said it would. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated this appeared to be a self-imposed hardship. Without the pool, the addition would still be a solar system. Board member Gustafson stated he was in agreement with Board member Huddleson. Board member Huddleson suggested the architect submit new drawings that would not need a variance. Board member Lancaster stated he saw this as a self-imposed hardship and moved to deny appeal 2065. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: none. The motion passed. Appeal 2066, 618 Whedbee, by Robert Dykeman, owner, approved. Section 29-167(5). The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet in order to allow a screened -in porch to be constructed over an existing slab, at the same set- back as the existing home. The property is located in the NCM zone. ----- Petitioners statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter, the lot is only 50 feet wide. Staff Comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 4 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, stated the proposed addition would line up with the existing wall on the North side. Mr. Robert Dykeman, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated they would like to cover the existing concrete patio. Board member Huddleson asked if the patio cover roof would tie into the present roof. Mr. Dykeman said it would be an extension of the present roof. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Wilmarth stated this was an older home and a narrow lot and had no problem with this appeal. She moved to approve Appeal 2066 for the hardship stated. Board member Cuthbertson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2067, 1601 Sudbury, by William R. Permer, owner, approved. Section 29-148, 29-133(4). ----- The variance would reduce the required 15 foot rear yard setback to 12 feet, for a porch cover addition over an existing slab. The house is located in the RP zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The patio slab was constructed at the time the home was built. The owner would like to build a porch cover over the slab. Most of the cover complies with the setback, but because of the irregular shape of the lot, a corner of the cover would not comply. Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this lot was on a cul-de- sac, and a portion of the present concrete patio is closer than 15' to the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 5 William Permer, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated the lot was a peculiar shape, the patio presently was square and they would like to cover the entire patio. By covering the patio it would be more usable, it would keep snow off the patio, and they could have more privacy for themselves and their neighbors. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated the hardship was clearly the configuration of the lot and moved to approve Appeal 2067 for the hardship stated. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None The motion passed. Appeal 2068, 121 Edwards, by Chris Ray, owner, approved. Section 29-210(5). The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Edwards from 15 feet to 4 feet in order to allow a portion of the existing building to be demolished and then reconstructed. The petitioner desires to locate the new construction at the same setback as the existing structure. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes, stated this lot was on the corner of Remington and Edwards. Chris Ray, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated this house is currently in very bad shape and appears to have been built without a foundation. He plans to completely demolish one half of the duplex and re -build it. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Lancaster stated this was another classic case and to make improvements to the house would improve the neighborhood. He was concerned the style of the re -building fit in to the style of the neighborhood. He moved to approve Appeal 2067 for the hardship stated. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Ll Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 6 Appeal 2069. 320 North Loomis Street, by Randy Wick, owner, approved. Section 29-167(2) The variance would reduce the required lot width from 40 feet to 35 feet in order to allow a new single family home to be constructed in the NCM zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is very narrow, only 35 feet wide, and was plotted that way in the early 19001s. Similar variances have been granted for this lot in the past, but have now expired because nothing was built. The adjacent lot also received a similar variance a number of years ago. Without a variance nothing can be built. ----- Staff Comments: There is quite a history of variances regarding this property. On August 13, 1981, the Board granted a similar variance for this property, and for the lots on either side. Single family dwellings were built on adjacent lots, but nothing was built on this lot.The variance expired and the original petitioner sought another variance for a single family dwelling in December 1983. This variance was granted, but nothing was built. In September 1984, the petitioner came back to the Board and received a variance for a duplex. Again, nothing was built on the lot. In October, 1986 a different petitioner asked for, and received, another variance for a duplex, but again the variance expired before anything was constructed. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the history of the lot. He stated both lots on either side of this lot applied for and received variances. Randy Wick, owner of the lot, appeared before the Board. He stated he has plans to build a single family home on the lot and improve the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 7 No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Gustafson stated this was an older lot and without a variance it would probably remain a vacant lot. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2069 for the hardship stated. Board member Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2070. 220 East Pitkin by Eleanor Maynerick, owner, approved. Section 29-167(4). The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow a new 10' X 18' carport to be constructed. The carport will replace the existing garage. The property is located in the NCM zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is a corner lot, wherein the house faces the legal street side lot line. Therefore, the west lot line functions as an interior side lot line, but is legally defined as the rear lot line. If it were legally the side lot line, only a 5 foot setback would be needed, and a variance would not be necessary. The carport will replace an older existing garage which is already nonconforming. The.lot is very small and there is little private yard area. The carport location will allow for a private garden area for the owner. ----- Staff Comments: This is a typical corner lot situation that the Board has considered numerous times in the past. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the legal front of the house is on Mathews but the address is on Pitkin. Ellie Maynerick, owner, appeared before the Board. She stated she has done extensive remodeling of the home, upgraded the outside of the home and believes the garage is an eyesore. She has plans to plant additional trees and put up new fencing. r Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 8 No was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Wilmarth stated this was a classic case of legal front/side yards. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2070 for the hardship stated. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Anneal 2071, 612 Smith Street, by Tim Simmons, friend of owner, approved. Section 29-167(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 4.4 feet in order to allow a room addition to an existing home in the NCM zone. The addition would line up with the existing wall of the house. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The home is existing with only 4.4 foot setback. The owner desires to enclose an area which would square off the house. The lot is narrow, oonly 50 feet wide. The home is an older home with a small bathroom. The addition would allow the bathroom to be expanded and allow a usable laundry room. The plumbing is all right there. Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the addition would line up with the existing house. Tim Simmons, friend of the owner, appeared before the Board. He submitted to the Board an elevation plan that would line up with the present roof line. No one was present in favor or in oppostion of this appeal. Board member Wilmarth stated this is the same thing, and older home in an older part of town and moved to approve Appeal 2071 for the hardship stated. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. d 1 Zoning Board of Appeals May 13, 1993 Page 9 Other Business Peter Barnes stated we will be getting new Board members for the July meeting. Carol Wilmarth is moving out of the Urban Growth Area and turned in her letter of resignation. Frank Lancaster's term is up and Bob Gustafson's term is also up, but has re -applied. The meeting was adjourned. Robert Gustafson, Chair Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin, RG/PB:aer