Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/08/1991• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 8, 1991 Regular Meeting - 8:30am The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held Thursday, August 8, 1991 at 8:30am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Boardchairman, Chuck Huddleson called the meeting to order. Board Members Present: Garber, Gustafson, Lancaster, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Cuthbertson Staff Members Present: Barnes, Reichert, Eckman Minutes of the regular July 11, 1991 were approved. Appeal 1997 - 636 Hinsdale Drive by Merle Rolfs, owner -approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a detached storage shed in the RLP zone. The shed is already constructed. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: When the owner built the shed in 1988, he was under the belief that the property behind his was going to be a park, and therefore this location would not bother anyone. The shed and location were reviewed and approved by the architectural review committee. Moving the shed to comply with the code would require changing the drainage pattern of the lot. Staff Comments: The shed was built with a one foot encroachment into the 6 foot utility easement. If the variance is approved, then the owner will have to go to the Planning and Zoning Board to seek approval to vacate a portion of the easement. The lot area of the property is 16,675 square feet. Two letters were received and read to the Board (copies are attached at the end of the minutes.) Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator noted that if this Board grants a variance on this appeal Mr. Rolfs would then have to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board to request the vacation of part of the utility easement. Each Board member had before them a landscape plan, a drawing of the shed, a drainage report from Doug Weitzel of Weitzel Excavating, and letters from the affected utility companies having easement rights. Mr. Barnes explained the shed was built in 1988 and a permit was not obtained from the City at that time. Chairman Huddleson asked Mr. Barnes if in 1988 was it Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 August 8, 1991 necessary to obtain a building permit to construct a shed of this size. Mr. Barnes stated a building permit was required since the shed was over 7 feet tall. Specifically, it is 9 feet 4 inches tall. Merle Rolfs, 636 Hinsdale Drive, appeared before the Board. He related to the Board the chain of events since September of 1987. He and his wife bought the lot at 636 Hinsdale with the understanding the lots were large open estate lots. The original plan was that behind the 636 lot was a proposed park. The Rolfs decided to build a shed to store their yard and garden equipment. When deciding where to place the shed, they realized there were potential problems. There is a slope on the property behind his lot. After looking at the ground water contour map, and seeing where the rain water would flow, they decided to place the shed as far back on the property as possible so as not to interfere with the drainage scheme that Mr. Weitzel had deigned. Because of the slope of the land and ground water tests, the developer put a swell for drainage in the middle of the backyard. In May, 1988, Mr. Rolfs presented his plans for the storage shed to the architectural review committee for the neighborhood association. They approved the shed. Mr. Rolfs then started construction on the shed October 1988. In February or March of 1989, the Rolfs realized there would not be a park behind them when they saw the stakes that marked the road. By that time the shed was well on it's way to completion. Mr. Rolfs did not realize he had violated any codes until he received a letter from Mr. Barnes. Mr. Rolfs thought all his bases were covered when he verbally asked Mr. Nordic, Claredon Hills developer, if he could have a shed in his backyard. Mr. Rolfs took the steps Mr. Nordic recommended. Mr. Rolfe looked through other variances granted by this Board and found one that was similar on Camelot. The appeal was granted because there was a greenbelt and pond behind the house. In 1988 when Mr. Rolfs built his shed, the master plan was to have a greenbelt/park behind his house. If he would have come before this Board then, he felt a variance probably would have been granted because of the park designation and drainage situation. Mr. Rolfs submitted pictures to the Board of the building of the shed. Mr. Barnes stated the appeal on Camelot was requested before the building was built. Boardmember Lancaster asked Mr. Rolfs if he had checked with the cable company about vacating the easement. Mr. Rolfs stated he had checked with Dennis Greenwald, and there was no problem with the cable company if this variance was granted. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 August 8, 1991 Boardmember Garber questioned Mr. Rolfs to clarify the drainage issue. Mr. Rolfs explained the land was sloping quite a ways North and all the drainage water came down into Mr. Rolfs lot. A swell was put in the middle of the Rolf Is backyard for drainage purposes. Chairman Huddleson clarified with Mr. Rolfs that at the time he put in the shed, the property to the north, was at a higher elevation but since then has been graded down, and the drainage situation was worse in 1988. Mark Linder, 4355 W. County Road 50E, appeared before the Board in favor of this application. Mr. Linder presently serves on the Homeowners Architectural Control Committee for Claridon Hills and is the director of the Homeowners Association. He stated if Mr. Rolfs lowered the height of the roof, the shed would be in compliance with the City, but then the Homeowners Association would have a problem because of the flat roof. He stated Mr. Rolfs relandscaped his back yard because a house was built 20 feet behind him. Mr. Linder stated when Mr.Pickering built his house on the lot behind Rolfs and because of the placement of the house, the architectural committee would have to require substantial landscaping between the two houses. Boardmember Garber asked Mr. Linder that if Mr. Rolfs would have built a shed without the architectural committee's approval, what would the committee have done. This committee deals with these on an individual basis. Mr. Bob Pickering, 633 Langdale Drive appeared before the Board. opposing the appeal. He stated he built his house within the requirements of all the City codes. His landscape design was approved by the covenant board and he has plans to put in four trees along the back side of his lot. Mr. Pickering's concern with the shed on Mr. Rolfs lot was that no permit was applied for and the violation of the height of the shed. Mr. Pickering had some concern regarding what was stored in the shed. One of Mr. Pickering's biggest concerns is the view of the roof of the shed from his home. He submitted photographs to the Board of the view of the shed from different areas of his home. He requested that Mr. Rolfs lower the roof on the shed. Boardmember Lancaster asked Mr. Pickering at what stage of construction the shed was when he purchased the lot. Mr. Pickering stated the bricks were being put on the shed. Boardmember Lancaster asked for clarification on timing with regard to the building of the shed and the platting of houses in lieu of a park. Mr. Linder stated the timing overlapped. The shed was totally done in June 1989, the third filing was platted in May 1989, and development Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 August 8, 1991 work started shortly thereafter. Mr. Linder stated he felt Mr. Rolfs did not know the park plans did not go through when he started the construction of the shed. Boardmember Garber asked when the Pickering house was built. Mr. Pickering stated Sept/Oct 1990. Mr. Pickering stated they placed the house as far front as possible on the lot when building the house. Boardmember Wilmarth asked Mr. Barnes if Mr. Rolfs were to move the shed in on his property the roof then could remain the same height. Mr. Barnes stated it could. Mr. Rolfs stated he understood Mr. Pickering's concerns, and could lower the roof and make it a flat tin roof, but felt a tin roof would be an eye sore. Mr. Rolfs also stated that if he were to move the shed to comply with the 15 foot setback, Mr. Pickering would view a brick wall of the shed in addition to just the roof. Boardchairman Huddleson stated he needed to sort through the circumstances and decide if this variance should be granted because of the lot configuration and therefore create a hardship that was not self imposed. Boardmember Wilmarth stated had this appeal been presented in 1988, she believes that the Board would have passed it even though circumstances have changed, she had no problem with this variance. Boardmember Lancaster agreed. Boardmember Garber also agreed. Boardmember Cuthbertson was not convinced the water drainage was the hardship and the problem could have been taken care of earlier. Boardmember Gustafson stated he felt Mr. Rolfs had no way of knowing that the park deal had gone through and the shed was 75% completed when Mr. Pickering started the construction of his house. By changing the roof it would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. Boardmember Garber moved to approve Appeal 1997 for the drainage reasons and unusual circumstances that existed in 1988. Boardmember Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Gustafson, Lancaster, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. Appeal 1998 - 401 E. Prospect by Mark and Susan Clifton, owner - approved with conditions. ----- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Peterson Street from 15 feet to 6 inches for an addition to an existing one -car garage in the RL zone. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 August 8, 1991 ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is currently a one car garage which is only 42" from the street side lot line. The owners desire to enlarge the garage and in order to save existing large trees, they feel the addition must be as far west as possible. This is the only feasible location on the property given the existing driveway and landscaping. ----- Staff comments: The dimensions of the addition are 22 feet by 22 feet. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this area of town is quite old. There is currently an oversized one car garage. Susan Clifton, 401 E Prospect, owner appeared before the Board. She stated there is no off-street parking, and the street is not paved. To add on to the existing garage it would be necessary to destroy old trees and existing landscaping. She checked with the City to see if there were plans to pave the street. She was informed there was not. The only other place for the garage would be the back, but the City has asked for an easement back there to bury power. Boardmember Garber asked if the owners plan to keep the fence. Mrs. Clifton stated they did not. Boardmember Lancaster stated by burying the power in the back of the Clifton's lot, that takes away any option of putting a garage in the back. Boardmember Lancaster stated he felt the best place for the garage would have been in the back, but with the City requesting an easement, there seems to be no other place. Boardmember Garber moved to approve appeal #1998 for the hardship discussed. Boardmember Anastasio seconded the motion. Boardmember Lancaster amended the motion to state the fence be removed along the garage. Yeas: Garber, Gustafson, Lancaster, Huddleson, Wilmarth. Anastasio, Cuthbertson. Motion passed. Appeal #1999 - 1841 Crestmore Place by Leonard Schlagel - appeal denied. ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet and the required side setback along the east lot from 5 feet to 3 feet for a detached two -car garage in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is presently no garage on the property. The owner desires to build a two -car garage. There isn't enough room on the side Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 August 8, 1991 of the house to attach it, so the only location is to the rear of the lot. If the building is moved to comply with the setbacks it would be so close to the house that it would be difficult to get a car in or out of the garage. Staff Comments: None Eight letters were returned and read to the Board (copies are attached at the end of the minutes.) Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes noted the Board members had a copy of each letter read, and that all the letters were from property owners around the variance in question. He noted that some of the surrounding houses don't have any garages and some have one car garages. One other house in the neighborhood has a 2 car unattached garage similar to what the petitioner is asking for and another house has an attached, 2-car carport. Applicant Leonard Schlagel, owner, 7125 Bonnybrook Ct. Longmont, CO appeared before the Board. He purchased the property recently and would like to build a two car garage. Boardmember Cuthbertson asked Mr. Schlagel what his purpose of the property was. Mr. Schlagel stated he does rent out the property presently, but has considered moving to Fort Collins to the house in the future. Delores Kling, has lived in their home for over 30 years. She opposed Mr. Schlagel putting in a 2 car garage. if Mr. Schlagel puts in a two garage, she's afraid the garage will be as big as the house and leave no back yard. Mr. Schlagel had a concern how other structures were approved for variance changes in the area. Boardchairman stated variances are granted for all sorts of reasons. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the 2 car detached garage was built approximately 30 years ago when the codes were different. A setback variance was approved on a nearby lot, but it was due to the lot being typical corner lot problem, where the house faces the legal side yard. Boardchairman Huddleson stated he had a problem with the hardship. Boardmember Anastasio agreed that this is a self-imposed hardship. Boardmember Lancaster moved to deny Appeal #1999 for lack of hardship. Boardmember Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Gustafson, Lancaster, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Anastasio, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. i r� Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 August 8, 1991 The meeting was adjourned. CH: PB:aer Chuck Huddleson, Chairman J Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator