Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/09/1992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 9, 1992 Regular Meeting - 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 9, 1992 at 8:30am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Lancaster, Perica, Anastasio. Staff Liaison: Council Liaison: Staff Support: Peter Barnes Susan Kirkpatrick Peter Barnes Ann Reichert Minutes of the June meeting were approved as published. Appeal 2035 - 336 East Magnolia, by Judy Brown, owner, approved. The variance would reduce the required setback along the street side of a corner lot from 15 feet to 14 feet. Specifically, the variance would reduce the required 15 foot setback along Peterson Street to 14 feet,, in order to allow an addition to the rear of the home to line up with the existing east wall. The house is in the NCM zone. ---- Hardship: The lot is an old lot, with only 50 feet of lot width. The home is existing, with a nonconforming setback of 14 feet. Aesthetically, the addition will look better lined up with the existing wall. Additionally, construction will be easier and the floor plan of the addition can match up with the existing floor plan. Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained this is a home located in the older part of town. The applicant Judy Brown was present to answer any questions. No one was present in opposition of this appeal. 0 • Zoning Board of Appeals July 9, 1992 Page 2 Patti Phillips, realtor for The Group, was present in favor of the appeal. She stated she thought this would enhance the downtown area. Board member Gustafson stated he saw this as a classic older home with a narrow lot and moved to approve Appeal 2035 for the hardship stated. Board member Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Lancaster, Perica, Anastasio. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2036 - 2002 Churchill Ct, by Meredith and Patti Kuehl, owners, approved. ----- The variance would allow a portion of a 6 foot high privacy fence to be located within 75 feet of the center of an intersection. Specifically, the variance would allow the southernmost 18 feet to be within 75 feet of the center of the intersection of Kent Way and Churchill Court. At its closest point, the fence is 58 feet from the center of the intersection. The property is located in the RLP zone. ----- Hardship: The owners believe that the fence does not obstruct traffic or pedestrian visibility. The fence is in compliance with the subdivision covenants. The owners have had possessions stolen from the parking area which is enclosed by this fence. The fence was constructed in part, to provide security and safety for the neighborhood children. The street is a cul-de- sac street, so there is very little traffic. Part of the home is also within 75 feet of the center of the intersection. ----- Staff Comments: The fence is in compliance with the adopted Street Standards of the City with respect to "line of sight easement" requirements. In other word for this particular configured lot located at a 90 degree intersection of two local streets containing no curves, the fence is set back an adequate distan to allow for visibility. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained this was a 90 d angle and the fence was already constructed and aligns wit existing garage. He stated the house meets the required sett He also stated Kent and Churchill are both dead end streets Barnes explained the fence is in compliance with the adopted standards of the City with respect to line of sight ea requirements that the Engineering department has adopted. Zoning Board of Appeals July 9, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Barnes stated the Zoning Code would allow a house to be within 75 feet of the intersection, but not a fence. The line of sight is a fairer way to deal with obstructions and staff has been investigating ways to change the zoning codes so that it is more site specific. Board member Perica asked Mr. Barnes if a conflict between two standards can justify a hardship. Board chairman Huddleson stated by looking at the slides, the fence did not appear to be create any hazardous situation. Patti Board their Kuehl, 2002 Churchill Court, owner, appeared before the She submitted to the Board a package of concerns supporting request. Some of her concerns were: 1) grade of the lot 2) safety liability 3) requirements are met 4) security 5) corner lot 6) home does not comply 7) enforcement of this for Rossbourough Subdivision rule is not consistent. No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board chairman Huddleson asked if a conflict in the law constitutes a hardship or is this an exceptional case? Board member Anastasio stated he saw the hardship based on the fence being set back further than the Engineering department's line of sight requirement and not being hazardous as determined by the Zoning setback of 75 feet from the center of the intersection. Board member Lancaster stated he did not think there was a conflict; Zoning and Engineering departments disagree, but the Engineering sight standard is a minimum. He stated the hardship is the Zoning regulations were established for the worst case scenario and because of the configuration of the streets and this lot, this is not the worst case, and therefore it is a hardship. Board member Lancaster moved to approve Appeal #2036 for the hardship of the configuration of the streets and this lot. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Lancaster, Perica, Anastasio. Nayes: None The motion passed. 0 • Zoning Board of Appeals July 9, 1992 Page 4 OTHER BUSINESS Peter Barnes mentioned a Boards and Commissions Workshop on September 17, 1992, Thursday, 6:30-9:30pm in the City Attorney's office. The meeting will cover open meetings, conflict of interest, liability issues and rules and procedures. Board president Huddleson received a letter from Steve Roy, City Attorney, concerning the Board & Commission Work Plans. The general consensus was to approve the work plan/goal Mr. Barnes had submitted. Another requirement is to submit an annual report each year. Mr. Barnes will take care of this report at the end of 1992. Chuck Huddleson, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Adminstrator CH/PB:aer 0 1. Roll call. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 9, 1992 2. Appeal 2035. The variance would reduce the required setback along the street side of the lot from 15 feet to 14 feet. Specifically, the variance would reduce the required 15 foot setback along Peterson st. to 14 feet, in order to allow an addition to the rear of the home to line up with the existing east wall. The house is in the NCM zone. Section 29-167 (5) by Judy Brown, 336 E Magnolia . Appeal 2036. The variance would allow a portion of a 6 foot high privacy fence to be located within 75 feet of the center of an intersection. Specifically, the variance would allow the southernmost 18 feet of the fence to be within 75 feet of the center of the intersection of Kent Way and Churchill Court. At its closest point, the fence is 58 feet from the center of the intersection. The property is located in the RLP zone. Section 29-511(3) by Maredith & Patti Kuehl, 2002 Churchill Ct. 4. Other business.