Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/12/1991• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 12, 1991 Annual Meeting - 8:30 am The annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 12, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Lancaster. Staff Present; Peter Barnes, Ann Reichert Minutes of the August meeting were approved. Appeal 2000 - 616 Smith Street by Michael and Laurie Verde - approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 2.4 feet for an addition to the r6ar of an existing house. The addition line up with the existing north wall of the house. The property is located in the RM zone. ----- Petitioner's hardship: The existing house is already 2.4 feet from the lot line. The owners desire is to build a utility room for a washer and dryer and a bathroom. This is the best place to build the addition and preserve the character of the house, and lining up the wall of the addition with the existing wall is the best way to construct it. Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes, stated the Board had seen similar requests. This home is in the older part of town. Tom Knivel, contractor for the applicant appeared before the Board. He submitted the floor plans. The family has grown since the purchase of the house and they want to add a bedroom. Boardmember Anastasio stated this looked to be a standard situation in the older part of town and had no problem with this appeal. Boardmember Gustafson moved to approve Appeal #2000 for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Lancaster. Motion passed. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 2 Appeal 2001 - 507 Larkbunting by Norland Hall, owner - approved. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet for a storage shed which will be approximately 9.5 feet tall. The lot is located in the RLP zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The platting of this part of the subdivision is quite unique in that the back- yard of the petitioner's property is adjacent to more lots then is customary with a corner lot. Reducing the setback as requested would allow the shed to be built in a location which has the least impact on the adjacent lots. There is only 34 feet from the rear lot line to the covered porch. Meeting the setback would put the shed only 9 feet from the house and right in the middle of the yard. ----- Staff comments: None Six letters were received. The letters are filed with these minutes. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained the house was located on the corner lot. The applicant is asking to build a shed taller than 7 feet, and that requires a permit to be pulled and setbacks met. Applicant Norland Hall, appeared before the Board. He submitted two photographs to the Board. His intent is to build a shed that will blend in with the landscape and not be an eyesore to the neighborhood. Linda Stewart, 519 Larkbunting Drive appeared before the Board in favor of the applicant. Boardmember Anastasio asked Peter Barnes if any utility easements were involved. Mr. Barnes stated there was not. Boardmember Lancaster stated this appeal did meet the intent of the side yard setbacks, because the back of the house does line up with the side of the adjacent house. The situation is unique, and would agree that is a hardship. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 3 Boardmember Anastasio agreed the configuration of the lot is a hardship. He moved to approve appeal 42001 on the hardship stated. Boardmember Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Lancaster. Motion passed. Appeal 2002 - 2601 South College, Mery Eckman of Adcon Signs for Spradley-Barr Auto Dealership - denied. The variance would amend the conditions of the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12-8-77, which authorized two freestanding signs on College Avenue instead of the one sign allowed by Code. The condition of the variance was that the smaller sign on College Avenue (now reading "Isuzu") be limited to 20 square feet per face at a maximum height of 917" and a setback of 3 feet. The owner desires to replace the existing "Isuzu" sign with a largef "Isuzu" sign. Specifically, the new sign would be 58 square feet per face, 19.5 feet tall, and setback 24 feet. The property is in the HB zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Isuzu has a new sign program. The proposed sign is larger, but the owner will place it at a setback where the size and height meet code. Carole Wilmarth, acting Chairperson, stepped down because of a conflict of interest and gave the Chair to Frank Lancaster. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the variance that was approved in 1977. The petitioner asked for nine freestanding signs, what was approved was 3 freestanding signs on College Avenue, five signs on Drake with conditions. One sign on College Avenue needed to be removed by 1982. The car wash is now sitting on it's own parcel of land and the two free standing signs on that property no longer apply to the dealership. Applicant Chris Bradley, owner Spradley-Barr Auto, and Mery Eckman, Adcon Signs appeared before the Board. Mr. Bradley stated they were not proposing an additional sign, but enlarging the one presently there, and moving it back off College Avenue further onto the property. Acting Board chairman Lancaster, stated the Board needs to respond to a hardship and that hardship cannot be a financial hardship or one self imposed. He asked Mr. Spradley to state what the hardship was in this case. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Spradley stated they are required to make the sign change as a dealership of Isuzu, to comply with Isuzu's new sign program. Boardmember Gustafson asked if Isuzu would create any hardship to the dealer if signs were not changed. Mr. Spradley stated he did not know. Boardmember Gustafson asked Mr. Barnes if there was any easement problem with placing the sign where it was proposed. Mr. Barnes stated if the variance was granted, the dealership would have to take responsibility to contact the utility offices to assure requirements were met. Mr. Eckman assured the Board no easements would be affected. Boardmember Anastasio stated he had a difficult time finding a hardship. As it is, this dea}ership already has more signs then the current sign code allows. Boardmember Cuthbertson asked Mr. Barnes to explain the original hardship in 1977. The hardship was the unique character of the lot and the lot was extremely long and narrow on College Avenue. Boardmember Gustafson stated this was a "backwards" request,, usually businesses want to move their signs closer to College Avenue and this dealership is proposing to move the sign further back, off College Avenue. Acting Board chairman Lancaster, stated he felt the smaller sign closer to College was less obtrusive than placing a larger sign further back on College. Making the sign larger adds to the clutter on College avenue. He stated the charge of this Board is to address the hardship because of the physical lay out of the lot and it is clear economic or self imposed hardships are not something we are supposed to consider. It was Isuzu's decision to change the sign, and the City's codes don't need to meet some corporate image. He stated this is a self-imposed hardship, the bigger the sign, the more the sales and so is an economic/financial hardship. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Eckman stated the new Izusu sign cannot be placed on the same pole as the Ford sign, and he indicated that the dealership would be willing to remove the "Service" sign on Drake as a condition of the variance. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 5 Boardmember Anastasio moved to deny Appeal #2003 for the hardship stated. There was no second, the motion died for a lack of a second. More Board discussion followed. Boardmember Anastasio stated the Appeal presented to the Board did not work, unless the Board proposes something for them, he moves to deny the Appeal on that basis. There are some possibilities, but non that they propose. Boardmember Cuthbertson seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Anastasio, Lancaster. Nays: Gustafson. The motion passed. Appeal 2003 - 1002 west Magnolia by Dan Siegfried, approved with condition. ----- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,681 square feet to 5,600 square feet for a 2,227 square foot house, (The lot area is required to be at least 3 times as large as the floor area of the house). The variance would also reduce the side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4.7 along the street side lot line (the east lot line) from 15 feet to 8.2 feet for a second story addition and garage addition, and from 15 feet to 1.2 feet along the street side lot line for an airlock entry and porch cover addition. The property is in the RL zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner has lived in the house for 13 years. His family is growing and he feels he needs additional room and would like very much to stay in the neighborhood. The lot is only 40' wide, therefore, it is narrower than most lots. The existing home is already nonconforming, and with the exception of the airlock entry, the addition will line up with the existing walls. The petitioner believes that the most practical way to add on is by constructing a second floor. An addition to the south side of the home is not desirable because it would cover an existing passive solar wall. The airlock entry is proposed to be an energy conservation feature. Two letters were received in favor of this variance. (Attached) Zoning Administer Peter Barnes explained this house is located on the corner of Gordon and Magnolia. He also explained how the addition would be positioned on the existing house. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 6 Applicant, Dan Seigfried appeared before the Board. He submitted pictures to the Board. He stated the key points are: o the lot is a narrow 40' corner lot o under current set -back that would allow only a 20' wide structure 0 other lots exceed 7000 square feet o practical solution to build up for additional bedrooms o right of way is very generous o no utilities on Gordon Street o this is a neighborhood with houses that exceed 2000 sq ft o airlock entry proposed is good conservation practice. Ed White, 1022 West Magnolia, appeared before the Board in favor of this appeal. Boardmember Lancaster stated where the house notches in there is no question there is a hardship. He stated he had some concerns with the covered deck setback at 1.21. Boardmember Gustafson stated the proposed steps would encroach in the right of way. The petitioner stated he was aware of that. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that was a situation that the petitioner must take up with the Engineering Department. Boardmember Cuthbertson agreed with Boardmember Lancaster, but did have some concerns with the setback for the covered deck. Petitioner Dan Siegfried stated he and his wife had decided to put a rain cover over the stoop of the front door and not cover the entire deck as shown on the original variance submitted. Boardmember Anastasio stated he had no problem with the first three issues, but did also have concerns with the setbacks for the deck cover. He suggested using some alternative to follow the existing lines of the house and saw this as a self imposed hardship. Boardmember Gustafson stated he also sees some alternatives to re -configure the airlock so it doesn't encroach in the right of way. Boardmember Lancaster asked the petitioner if he would be comfortable with a 15 foot setback from the curb to the east edge of the deck cover. The petitioner stated yes. ' Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 7 Boardmember Lancaster moved to approve Appeal #2003 with the exception that the side lot line setback be reduced from 15 feet to 3.2 feet for the porch cover. Boardmember Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Lancaster. Motion passed. Appeal 2004 - 1605 Remington by Craig Olson, approved with condition. ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet, and the required yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a new, detached two -car garage in the RM zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to provide a covered, enclosed parking area. He desires to pr"erve a mature tree, and in order to do this it is necessary to request a sideyard variance The back of the garage will abut an existing retaining wall which is in place because of changes in elevation of the lot. Because of the smallness of the yards and the elevation changes, it is desirable to keep the garage from encroaching east of the retaining wall. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this is a long duplex that takes up a considerable depth of the lot. At this time the petitioner parks on the rear of the property, accessing from the alley. It is unenclosed and gravel. Craig Olson, 1605 Remington appeared before the Board. He stated the garage proposed is larger than normal for storage purposes. Mr. Olson feels this addition would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Boardmember Anastasio asked the petitioner to explain the retaining wall in relationship to where the new garage will start. Boardmember Lancaster stated he felt this was a classic appeal. This is a narrow lot with a retaining wall and topographic changes. Boardmember Anastasio moved to approve Appeal # 2004 with the condition the locust tree stay. Boardmember Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Lancaster. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 8 Appeal 2005 201 S. Whitcomb by Rick Emery, partially approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet, and the street side setback along Oak Street from 15 feet to 8 feet for a bedroom addition to a single-family in the RH zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: Given the location of the existing landscaping and shed, the owner believes that this is the only feasible location for a bedroom addition. if the bedroom is built to comply with the code it would only be about 6 feet wide. The property line along Oak is 20 feet behind the curb, so the a addition will be 28 feet from the street. Zoning administrator Peter Barnes stated this was a corner lot in an older part of town. He explained the addition would be 28' from the curb. Applicant Rick Emery appeared before the Board. Mike Sweeny, contractor representing Mr. Emery also appeared before the Board. Mr. Emery submitted an additional letter of support. Boardmember Gustafson stated the proposal for the additional bedroom was a good size room. He asked Mr. Sweeney if there was any options for building the addition to fit better in the setbacks. Mr. Sweeney stated the back door would need to go where the window is now, and they could rearrange the floor plan to fit into the 15 foot setback. Boardmember Lancaster stated it appears the 14 foot setback is self-imposed and suggested to re -arrange the plans to fit in the 15 foot setback regulations. Boardmember Lancaster stated he would support the 8 foot setback on Oak street but not the 14 foot rear setback. Boardmember Gustafson moved to approve Appeal #2005 for 8 foot setback on Oak street and not the 14 foot rear setback. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustfason, Cuthbertson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Lancaster. The motion passed. Appeal #2006 814 West Mountain by Roger Warren, passed. ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 2.4 feet in order to allow an existing room at the back of the house to be demolished, and a new two-story addition and porch cover to be built in its place. The home is in the RL zone. Zoning Board of Appeals September 12, 1991 Page 9 Petitioner's hardship: The owner desires to add a bathroom to the existing 2nd floor, and desires to replace the steps going down the basement apartment. The steps don't comply with current code and this is a good opportunity to correct the problem. Also, the existing room has a flat roof which leaks all the time. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this again was a house located in the older part of town. Grant Smith, representing the petitioner appeared before the Board. He stated there is presently no bathroom upstairs. The plan is to build the addition in the same style of the present house. Boardmember Gustafson moved to approve appeal #2006 for the hardship stated. Boardmember Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Anastasio, Wilmarth, Lancaster. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS The Board discussed election of officers. It was decided because the Chairperson, Mr. Huddleson was not present, that elections would be tabled until the October meeting. It was moved by Boardmember Cuthbertson and seconded By Boardmember Anastasio to table the election to next month. Yeas: Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Anastatio, Wilmarth, Lancaster. The motion passed. Zoning Administer Peter Barnes read a letter from Boardmember Jim Garber. Mr. Garber resigned from the Zoning Board of Appeals as he is moving to Denver to accept a position there. The meeting was adjourned. NEXT MEETING - ELECTION OF OFFICERS - October 10, 1991 Carole Wilmarth, Vice Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA September 12, 1991 1. Roll Call. 2. Appeal 2000. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 2.4 feet for an addition to the rear of an existing house. The addition would line up with the existing north wall of the house. The property is located in the RM zone. Section 29-178(5) by Michael and Laurie Verde, 616 Smith Street. 3. Appeal 2001. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet for a storage shed which will be approximately 9.5 feet tall. The lot is located in the RLP zone. Section 29-147(1), 29-133(4) by Norland Hall, 507 Larkbunting. Appeal 2002. The variance would amend the conditions of the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12-8-77, which authorized two freestanding signs on College Avenue instead of the one sign allowed by Code. The condition of the variance was that the smaller sign on College Avenue (now reading "Isuzu") be limited to 20 square feet per face at a maximum height of 917" and a setback of 3 feet. The owner desires to replace the existing "Isuzu" sign with a larger "Isuzu" sign. Specifically, the new sign would be 58 square feet per face, 19.5 feet tall, and setback 24 feet. The property is in the HB zone. Section 29-595(h) by Mery Eckman of Adcon Signs for Spradley-Barr Auto Dealership, 2601 S. College Avenue. Appeal 2003. The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,681 square feet to 5,600 square feet for a 2,227 square foot house. (The lot area is required to be at least 3 times as large as the floor area of the house). The variance would also reduce the side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4.7 feet and along the street side lot line (the east lot line) from 15 feet to 8.2 feet for a second story addition and garage addition, and from 15 feet to 1.2 feet along the street side lot line for an airlock entry and porch cover addition. The property is in the RL zone. Section 29- 133(1), 29-133(5) by Dan Siegfried, 1002 W. Magnolia. r 6. Appeal 2004. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet, and the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a new, detached, two -car garage in the RM zone. Section 29- 178(4), 29-178(5) by Craig Olsen, 1605 Remington. Appeal 2005. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet, and the street side setback along Oak Street from 15 feet to 8 feet for a bedroom addition to a single-family home in the RH zone. Section 29-203(4) by Rick Emery, 201 S. Whitcomb. Appeal 2006. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 2.4 feet in order to allow an existing room at the back of the house to be demolished, and a new two-story addition and porch cover to be built in its place. The home is in the RL zone. Section 29- 133(5) by Roger Warren, 814 W. Mountain Avenue.