Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/10/1989i OUh. :• • :a • : * r, y;lEz August 10, 1989 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 10, 1989 at 8:30 a.m. in the CUuncil Chaabers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call Was anavered by Boardmembers Lancaster, Huddleson, Spigsht. Members absent: Wilmarth, Nelson, lawton, Thede. Staff prevent: Barnes, Zeigler, Molman. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 13, 1989 were approvers as Published. The minutes of the July 13, 1989 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1926. Section 29-133 (3) by William and Nancy Moir, owners, 940 W. Mountain - Anorvved. "—'Rue variance would reduce the required from yard setback E 20 feet to 13 feet in order to enclose an existing fron porch. The home is in the M zone. —Petitioner's statement of hardship: The frazt porch is existing and in need of repair. Die owners desire to enclose the porch with glass panels all the way around, and install 2 skylicgits. This will act as a solar collector. The building Will not be clCser to the street than it already is. The property lithe is 24 feet behind the curb, so the building will still be 37 feet E the street, far in excess of the intent of the code. The enclosure will also serve to cut down on the noise from Mountain Avenue and insulate the house. — Staff comments: One of the hardships listed in the Code wherein the ZBA is authorized to grant a variance is when the owner's ability to install a solar energy system is hindered by the application of the Code." No notices or letters were received. Mr. Moir said his porch is falling apart and the windows are single pane and cold. He received a bid of $2000 to repair this and decided at that time if he were going to put out that kind of money, he would prefer to go ahead with something solar. He is very concerned about maintaining the style of the home and is trying to rem n consistent with the present architecture. He showed the Board the plans explaining the upper dormer will remain the same and roof features will be ZBA Minutes August 10, 1989 Page 2 maintained. Me Board complimented him on the architectural design of the addition. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. BoardmEuber axUleson said he had no problem with the variance arcl felt there was indeed a hardship and feels it doesn't violate the intent of the code. He made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. the motion was seocrrled by Boardmember Sp1ght• Yeas: BxIdleson, Lancaster, Spight. Nays: None. Motion carried 3-0. Appeal #1927. Section 29-178 (4) by John Davison, owner, 829 Peterson - Approved. 't--iIYne variance would rechce the required near yard setback along the alley from 15 feet to 3 feet in order to allow an addition to be built onto an existing cne-car garage in the R4 zone. —Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing garage is already at a 3 foot setback. The owner world like to add on in order to be able to park 2 cars in the garage. Aesthetically, the best way to add on is to line up the new Falls with the existing. the addition mild be built onto the side of the existing garage to comply with the rear setback, but then a side yarn variance would be required and a large tree and brick barbecue would have to be removed. nne owner will be doing most of the work himself, but his job will be taking him away from home for several months and he would like the variance for one year in order to be able to build when the weather is good. .Staff MROPnts: None. 11 No notices were returned; the attached letter Fes received. Peter Barnes eplained the variance request to the Board. He pointed ant that the alley is 25 feet wide. Most alleys are 15 or 20 feet wide, which nakess this one unusual. John Davison, owner, said the existing garage will barely hold one car. He needs the addition for storage of lawn equipment and would like to park two vehicles in it. When the addition is done, one car will be behind the other. The entrance will be from Locust. If he acYhed on to the East, he would need a variance and two trees and a barbecue would have to be removed. Mr. Stanley 4z lbeda, 329 E. locust Street, spoke in favor of the variance. He doesn't feel the addition would cause problems for the neighbors. When asked by the Baird about other existing, possibly illegal, garages in the area, Mr. Barnes explained they are most likely non -conforming, riot illegal. Non- conforming means they were built prior to 1965 when setbacks didn't apply to detached, accessory buildings. whey are not in violation but are older buildings. zBA Minutes Augast 10, 1989 Page 3 Bomber Huddleson felt either way the applicant went he would have a hard- ship. Boardmmiber Lancaster agreed and nought the best alternative was being proposed. Boardmenber Spight made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardosober Huddleson. Yeas: Spight, Bxidlescn, Lancaster. Nays: None. Motion carried 3-0. Appeal #1928. Section 29-133 (5) by BxjrTdm Fleming, owner, 45 S. Taft Hill Road - Aoorvved. "—'Ihe variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 4.1 feet for an addition to a single family dwelling in the IM zone. —Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing house is already located only 4.1 feet E the lot lime. The owner would like to line the addition up with the existing walls, therefore a varianoe is needed. Lining the walls up will allow the roof line to be the same as the existing. ��.aff comments: None." No notices were returned and the attached letter was received. Gail Flemming said she is proposing to add two bedrooms and a family room. The property is 600 feet deep therefore it won't cause any problem with lack of space in the back yard. The addition will be single story. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardummber Huddleson Wade a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seoorled by Aoardmed er Spight. Yeas: Huddleson, Lancaster, Spight. Nays: None. Motion carried 3-0. Appeal #1929. Section 29-178 (2) by Habitat for Humanity, potential buyer, 523 Maple - Aporaved. 11---11he variance would red'h the required lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet for a new duplex in the RBI zone. —Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is an existing lot, with only 45 feet of lot width. The salve variance would be required for even a single family dwelliM. The building could be turned and located at the rear of the lot and no variance would be required, but accessibility and use of the lot would not be maxnazen by such a layout. The proposed location would allow fenced in Privacy areas, separate aocess points and better utilization of the lot. --Staff comments: None." No notices or letters were received. `/.BA minutes August 10, 1989 Page 4 Peter Barnes explained the lot as being "L" shaped. The maximum width of the lot is in the rear. The duplex could be built at the rear of the lot and no variance would be needed. Duplexes are a permitted use by right in this zone. Denise Case represented Habitat for Humanity said they have been trying for six months to find a lot in Fart Collins for their first duplex. They would like to take advantage of the "L" shaped lot. The goal of Habitat for Humanity is to give as much independence and privacy to families as possible. Most of the houses in the area are older homes. This would be new construction. She showed the Board new revised site plans adding an additional twenty feet of open space at the rear. Delphinne Icpez spoke opposed to the variance request. She lives at 229 N. Sherwood and has an apartment house next door and another on the corner. Sine feels there are too many apartments being fitted into residential areas. Helen Fitz, 225 N. Whitoomb, spoke opposed to the variance. She said there is a 4-plex in the area, a duplex to the north, and a fair rnumber of other rentals. In the past they have had trouble with low income rentals and the people in those areas. Ms. Case tried to answer the concerns of these residents. She stated the duplex units will be owner occupied. Habitat for Humanity is a group of concexnned citizens that construct a home and will sell it to a selected family that can not qualify for a normal house loan. The buyers have to agree to volunteer 250 horns of labor into their home and the next home. Payments for the first year are set up as a lease,/cptim. If a problem arises, Habitat for Hares pity will take the hose back and offer it to another family. The loans given to these people are no interest loans, therefore the payment remains in the area of around $200/munth. An additional $20 is escrowed for hone repairs and maintenance and they are taunt to take pride in ownership and to keep their places in good repair. Habitat for Humanity is a group of cmoerned people that feel everyone should have the right to a decent hone. They feel a single family house would not be a good economical use of this particular lot. The lot is in receivership and is currently a field of weeds. If they build on the back of the lot, they would have a 150 foot driveway and Ms. Case feels it would not fit as well into the neighborhood. 6000 square feet of space on a lot is needed for a single family hone or duplex. This lot has almost 12,000 square feet of space. The units will go to the occupants in a condo type mlershlP- There is no assurance that it would not be rented out at a later date. After hearing Ms. Case's explanation of the situation, Ms. Fitz said her concerns had been addressed. Ms. Icpez said she is riot opposed to the sUxehire, but would prefer single family in the neighborhood. Boardmember Lancaster feels it meets the zoning requirements and can be built without a variance, but wouldn't look as nice. ArP r nrm wr Huddler on agreed and said density is not the issue. He was satisfied a bardsh exists. Boardneatoer Spight made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was secoded by Bomber Huddlesan. Yeas: Huddleso n, nanacter, Spight. Nays: None. Motion carried 3-0. $$A Minutes August 10, 1989 Page 5 Appeal #1930. Section 29-131 (2) by Bivian Mercado, owner, 731 Alta Vista - "—'ihe variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a single family dwelling in the RL zone. The house will be awed onto the lot. —Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a platted lot in an older part of town. It was platted with only 50 feet of lot width, therefore the lot, by platting, is too narrow. —Staff mmneuts: None." One notice was returned, address unlacwn. No letters were received. Boardmimber Lancaster abstained from Voting due to a possible conflict of interest but remained in chambers to constitute a quorum. Boarct enber Bxldlescn was appointed chairman for this appeal. Mr. Yerrado said he obtained a construction loan two weeks ago, not knowing that a variance was needled. He explained that it is an older lot and wasn't platted wide enough. Richard Kelly spoke in favor of the Variance and said it would ernhanoe the rueighl adx)od . Boardmeuber Spight said anything that was built on the lot would need a Variance and there are no alternatives. He made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmanber Huddleson. Yeas: Huddleson, Spight. Nays: None. Motion carried 2-0. Appeal #1931. Section 29-133 (5) by Tim Boyden, owner, 951 Laporte - "—Ihe Variance would reduce the required street side setback along Mack street from 15 feet to 11 feet for a sunroan addition to a single family dwelling in the RL zone. —Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing douse is already only 11 feet from the property line. Structurally and aesthetically, the addition is more efficient by lining it up with the existing structure. The addition will still be 21 feet from the orb. The Variance world also allow the intended solar energy use of the addition to be more efficient. —Staff mmne nts: None. No notices or letters were received. Peter Barnes pointed out that this property had the standard corner lot setback problem of homes in the older part of town. ZBA, Minutes August 10, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Boyden sh A d the Board the drawings of his proposed addition. None of the Boardmarbess had a problem with this and felt they had given many variances for the same hardship. Mv-- meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Frank Lancaster, Chairman Peter Barnes, start Laalson • 0 / q'0-29 August 1, 1989 Peter Barnes, Zoning administrator Building permits & Inspections Division —Development Services City of Fort Collins, PO Box 580 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, Co. 80522-0580 Dear sir: This is in response of your letter dated July 28, 1989 advising me of John Davidson's appeal no. 1927 that comes before the zoning board of appeals on August 10. Mr. Davidson recently purchased one of this neighborhood's most run down and neglected rental properties and has begun renovating the historic structure as his residence. t is my opinion that the other very impressive renovation work at this address has substantially added to the quality and character of the neighborhood. In addition, the fact that this property is now owner occupied makes me believe that, Mr. Davidson has already contributed to an increase in the value of all properties in the neighborhood. In addition, the variance being requested is not safety related and it is ridiculous to hold that Mr. Davidson's garage variance will adversely affect the value of other properties when virtually every other property on the block is in violation of this requirement. Perhaps, this requirement is inappropriate for this older neighborhood in which lots are long and narrow. Finally, I admire Mr. Davidson's interest in going by the book. I know of many many zoning violations in this neighborhood that came into existence because the owner felt the appeal process was to cumbersome and unfair. I hope that you choose to send these property owners a message by approving Mr. Davidson's request. C Sincerely 3 9 F -` 33i rz.6. 33 / E . City C*il • July 25, 1989 Frank Lancaster Chair, Zoning Board of Appeals 2313 Arctic Fox Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Frank, Thank you for bringing the issue of undersized lots to my attention. As a former Planning and Zoning Board member I understand the difficult position your Board is placed in dealing with this kind of problem. I have raised the issue with both the City's Planning and Zoning staffs. They are aware of the problem and have implemented measures which should prevent the most obvious errors of developers undersizing lots from occurring in the future. However, finding a solution to the situation where a developer plats a legal, "buildable" lot which ends up not being large enough to accommodate the house desired by a builder and/or homeowner is still a perplexing problem. The best that the City can do in these situations, I believe, is to continue the past staff practice of questioning the developer of the potential "buildability" of these lots at the time of platting and further informing them that any variance needed to allow a larger or different configuration of a building on a particular lot will require the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals according to the rules, criteria and policies governing the Board's judgement on these matters. Again, thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. If you should have any further comments, please feel to contact me. % Sincerely, Dave Edwards City Councilperson DE/tt xc: City Council Planning and Zoning Board Mike Davis, Director of Development Services Tom Peterson, Planning Director 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6505