Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/11/1989ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Regular Meeting May 11, 1989 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 11, 1989 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Wilmarth, Lawton, Lancaster, Huddleson, Thede (came after the first appeal), Nelson. Boardmembers absent: None. Staff present: Barnes and Zeigler. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 13, 1989, Approved as Published The minutes of the April 13, 1989 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1913. Section 29-178 (4), 29-178 (5) by Gordon Wallace, owner, 416 Smith - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 13 feet 4 inches and the side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet 8 inches for a detached garage in the RM zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is no garage on the property now. Any location will require a side yard variance. If the garage is attached and moved forward it will come very close to an existing window on the south wall of the house. ---Staff comments: None." Peter Barnes made introductory comments regarding the variance. Gordon Wallace said he hadn't received any estimates nor has he purchased any materials for this project. He has only one vehicle, therefore only wants to add a one car garage. He explained that the size of the lot has been reduced by replatting through the years. Three lots were converted into six lots on Smith and Lilac. All of the houses line up in the front. He also showed the Board an elevation plan. Boardmember Lawton asked about access to the garage. Mr. Wallace said that he would access from a driveway in the front. At this time there is no curb cut. He plans to put one in at a later time. Peter Barnes cautioned that driving over the vertical curb may crack or break it and the city could hold him responsible for replacement. ZBA Minutes Page 2 Peter Barnes answered Boardmember Huddleson's question regarding the garage addition not fitting into the neighborhood. He said most of the houses in the neighborhood were built without garages. A lot of the houses have added detached garages. There was no one in the audience to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Lawton feels it is a narrow garage and the setback request is min- imal. He has no problem granting this variance. Boardmember Nelson said it is scaled with a good perspective and feels the petitioner had good intent in minimizing the variance request. Boardmember Lancaster said getting a car off of the street will help to improve the neighborhood. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Wilmarth, Lawton, Lancaster, Huddleson, and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1914. Section 29-133 (5) by Mayo Sommermeyer, owner, 810 E. Elizabeth - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet for a garage addition to the rear of the existing one -car garage. The home is located in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addi- tion, the home currently has only a one -car garage. The petitioner would like to expand the garage to accommodate a second car. ---Staff comments: In 1981, the Board granted a variance to this property to allow a detached garage to be built in front of the existing one, with only a 4 foot setback. The garage was never built." Mr. Barnes said a variance had been granted in 1981 to build a detached garage in the front with a four foot setback. It was never built. Now the owner want to build it in the back and attach it to the house. Mr. Sommermeyer pointed out the proposed roof line on the slides of the pro- ject. He feels the setback wouldn't effect anyone because of the fence and walkway. The neighbors garage abutts the fence along the school access. Mr. Sommermeyer said he would access the garage addition through the existing garage. Boardmembers Lancaster and Thede said they had no problem with the variance because the intent of the code is being met by having the public access ease- ment which establishes distance between properties. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. ZBA Minutes Page 3 Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lawton. Yeas: Wilmarth, Law- ton, Lancaster, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. (Boardmember Huddleson abstained from discussion and voting due to appearance of conflict of interest.) Appeal #1915. Section 29-133 (2) by Neal Bronsert, potential owner and con- tractor. 4142 Saddle Notch - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 56 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: Medema Homes platted this subdivision approximately 10 years ago. This lot was platted as a virtually unbuild- able lot, since any house built which exceeds 7.5 feet in depth would require a variance. ---Staff comments: None" Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the board that this lot was platted in Willow Park Subdivision approximately 11 years ago by Medema Homes. He pointed out that one of the drawings the board had in their packet is a site plan of the proposed house. He showed them the narrowest part of the lot on which the house sits and the code says that has to be 60 feet across. The site plans shows that is 56 feet. Toward the front of the house, basically through the garage, there is approximately a 7 foot deep area which would qualify for the 60 foot lot width. Everything else on this lot is less than 60 feet wide. So the only possible way for a house to be built on this lot is if it is 7 feet deep. The lot was platted this way. Lot #28 is the lot in question. All of the other lots on this block have been built and they are all at a minimum of 60 feet with the exception of Lot #24 which has 56 feet. It received a variance from ZBA quite a number of years ago. There is no way for this block to be replatted to shift land to Lot #28. The block was platted resulting in lots that are deficient in terms of meeting the code. He said the lot in question was a parking lot for the Medema show home sales office. Boardmember Huddleson asked if the city approved this plat. Mr. Barnes said yes, the city did approve it. In the review process, which the Planning office handles, the applicant submits the plat to them and it gets routed to various departments, one of which is the zoning department. The zoning department commented back in writing that there were a number of lots in this subdivision that would not meet the code requirements. Medema Homes was made aware of that but didn't correct those things and submitted the plat to Plan- ning and it was recorded and approved by the city. Mr. Huddleson asked what effect it would have when the city approved the plat, shouldn't anyone be able to build without a variance. Mr. Barnes said no, there is a recorded document and they still have to comply with the code. ZBA Minutes Page 4 He explained that it's hard to put a scale on each lot on a plat submittal and get accurate dimensions to find out if anyone is able to build on it, espe- cially when they submit a plat with a couple of hundred lots on it. Lot #24 was an obvious one which didn't need a scale. It was 56 feet at the front and the back. Mr. Huddleson confirmed what Mr. Barnes had said, that even though the plats approved, it is still subject to compliance with zoning codes. Mr. Barnes confirmed this. He said that if Medema Homes were coming in for a var- iance he thought the board might feel that the hardship is self imposed because they created the hardship. Neal Bronsert, petitioner, said that the neighbor to the north is using the parking lot at this time. His garage was finished off as office space. His driveway is still there. Mr. Bronsert is trying to purchase the lot from Greg Bever, who purchased the lot from Richmond, for the purpose of building a single family dwelling for resale. History on the subdivision - Medema originally platted the lot, then sold out to Richmond who sold lots to Greg Bever. Apple Homes is also building on some lots in the subdivision. Neal was asked if the footprint shown was actual or conceptual. He said the only thing that might change would be placement of the patio. The house will face west toward Saddlenotch. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Thede said that we do have a code that needs to be met. She feels the Board has faced this many times before and later they see the home owner wants to add a deck or porch which will require another variance. In her opinion the hardship is self imposed and if this is allowed a precedence is being set. Peter Barnes said if the owner wanted to add a deck onto the back of the house, a variance would be needed and added that he has never seen the board deny a variance when it was a situation where it wasn't the original devel- oper. He said the board does not know for sure that subsequent owners made a conscious purchase of this lot knowing that they couldn't build on it. He can only assume that the planning department communicated this to the original developer. This piece of property has changed hands about three times he said. Mr. Barnes felt it was self imposed by Medema Homes who platted the lots, but not necessarily by the various owners through the years. The only other option for this lot is to use the P.U.D. process. Boardmember Lancaster felt any buyer would check to see if this is a buildable lot before they purchase it, much the same as Mr. Bronsert is doing. He said this is a different situation than lots in the older part of town that were platted before the zoning ordinance was in effect. The rules were in effect when this lot was platted. ZBA Minutes Page 5 This sale is a three lot deal and the lot in question is part of the package. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Bronsert how many lots remain unbuilt in this area. Mr. Bronsert said six lots are vacant. These three lots are the only lots on the north side that aren't built on. Boardmember Lawton said that in the past the Board has looked at options available and tried to weigh the alternatives to the neighborhood. Does it remain an open and empty lot, does it remain a parking lot for the neighbor and is this a suitable alternative for the neighborhood. He wished that some- one was present from the neighborhood to give their opinion. Boardmember Lancaster said that it was planned and approved as a parking lot for the show home and since the city approved this size lot he assumes that is what they wanted it as. Boardmember Nelson thought when someone went to the expense of having a lot paved, the builder never planned on building on it. He made a motion to deny appeal #1915 because the hardship is self imposed. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Lancaster, Thede, Nelson. Nays: Lawton, Huddleson. The variance was denied. Appeal #1916. Section 29-178 (2) by Jim Klein, for the Fort Collins Housing "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 53.94feet for a single family home in the RM zone. The house will be moved on to the lot from another location. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is undeveloped and had only 34.24 feet of width. The petitioner is proposing to deed 19.70 feet from the adjacent lot to make the proposed lot 53.94 feet wide. No additional land can be obtained from the adjacent lot because then it would be less than 60 feet wide also. ---Staff comments: It would appear that the petitioner is doing all he can to make this lot as wide as possible." Peter Barnes explained that the Housing Authority owns two lots and have a donated house that used to sit on Lemay and Stuart, for the lot. This is the only available lot that the Housing Authority has and said that the trees will be left untouched. Boardmember Lancaster said he had seen this come up before - platted prior to zoning laws. He thought is was good they had another property to transfer land and make a workable lot. ZBA Minutes Page 6 Boardmember Lawton asked that the City Forester get involved so that the trees are not damaged in construction. Peter Barnes said at least one off street parking space needs to be provided. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the trees are left in place and the city fores- ter gets involved in the project. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Law- ton. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Huddleson, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1917. Section 29-178 (1), 29-178 (2) by Pat Klein, owner, 421 Park St. - Approved for one year. "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 square feet to 5,750 square feet, and the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is an older lot, and platted with less lot width and lot area than todays code requires. Without a variance nothing can be built. ---Staff comments: The Zoning Board granted a variance to the same code sec- tions in 1984 for a duplex. The property did not develop." Mr. Barnes said variances had been approved for duplexes in 1984 on both lots (Appeal #1917 and #1918). The properties have a new owner who is proposing to put a single family unit on each lot. Pat Klein told the Board she proposes to build two houses. Each design will be different. Because one of the houses has a bay window, it makes it neces- sary for a side yard setback and lot area reduction. Drive -way access will be from the front of the lot. Boardmember Nelson asked if the house can be moved toward the garage. Ms. Klein said it would make the driveway area really tight. Both drive ways will be in between houses. She also requested that the variances have an extended time period of one year rather than the usual six months. There was no one to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Lancaster said he had no problem with the lot variance but he did have problems with the side yard setback. Boardmember Thede agreed. It was decided that each variance would be voted on separately. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with a limita- tion of one year. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Huddleson. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Huddleson, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. ZBA Minutes Page 7 Appeal #1918. Section 29-178 (1), 29-178 (2), 29-178 (5) by Pat Klein, owner, 425 Park Street - Partial Approval "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 square feet to 5,750 square feet and the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet. The variance would also reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow a 2 foot bay window. The vari- ances are for a new single family home in the RM zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See appeal #1917. In addition, the 2 car garage is at the minimum 5 foot setback and therefore the house can't be moved over to accommodate the window. The house as designed is only 22 feet wide, which is quite narrow. The window is desirable to allow an adequate sized dining room. ---Staff comments: The Board granted similar variances for the lot area and width in 1984 for a duplex which was never built." Staff comments were made with appeal #1917. Discussion was held during same appeal. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve variance request for lot width reduction and lot area reduction but deny the sideyard setback and one year stipulation requested. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Huddleson. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster Huddleson, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1919. Section 29-147 (1), 29-133 (4), 29-133 (5) by Poudre Fire Authority, owner, 2030 Devonshire - Approved for hardship stated "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet, and the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 7 feet to 5 feet for a garage and storage addition to Fire Station #4. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The station is going to be getting a new truck which will be the same length as the existing garage. Therefore an extension of the garage is necessary in order to be able to walk and work around the truck. If the extension is built in the front then when the truck is pulled out of the garage for servicing it will encroach on the sidewalk and street. The storage area is for ladder storage primarily and if it is located somewhere else, then ladders would have to be carried and maneuvered around the trucks and other equipment. A ditch borders this lot to the west and is adjacent to Taft Hill, so nothing can be built to the west. Therefore, the storage addition will not impact anyone. ---Staff comments: None" Peter Barnes explained why Poudre Fire Authority needs a variance for this project. Larry Trampe, Architectural Resources Group, said that Poudre Fire Authority has had some change in equipment requirements that necessitated an ZBA Minutes Page 8 addition to the building. Ron Uthmann told the Board that in 1980 a new piece of equipment came out called a mini pumper with a radial control nozzle and two man technology. This didn't work out and equipment was sold. New equipment requires three men and with new laws stating that firemen have to be in the cab in a seat with a seat belt on, larger equipment was purchased. Also a brush pumper is stored at this site for fire fighting at Horsetooth which requires more room. Boardmember Nelson asked about parking on the street. Mr. Uthmann said in the past it has been a problem and they had to post signs that say no parking. The equipment can't make the turn out of the garage if vehicles are parked on the street. The majority of the boardmembers felt there was a legitimate hardship. A motion was made and seconded to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Huddleson, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1920.Section 29-203 (1), 29-203 (2) by John Giuliano, contractor, 817 Remington - Tabled until special meeting "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 square feet to 4,900 square feet and the required lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a new duplex in the RH zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This lot is existing, and the house that currently exists on the lot is dilapidated and needs to be demol- ished. The owner would like to build a duplex in its place. All setbacks and parking are being met. This is a compatible land use for the neigh- borhood. ---Staff comments: None." John Giuliano told the Board the lot in question has a 4-plex to the north, a parking lot to the south and commercial center at the rear of the property. The neighborhood is a highly residential use, used by college students. They feel a duplex will improve the area and also feel that Planning & Zoning set a precedence by approving a four plex on a fifty foot lot to the north. The project will have four off-street parking spaces. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Wilmarth said she was uneasy with approval of this project because the petitioner didn't present any plans that could be reviewed by the board, the square footage of the project is not known and it's not definite which direction the units will face. Boardmember Nelson said he felt positive about the project but apprehensive for the same reasons as Boardmember Wilmarth stated. After discussion by the board Chairman Lancaster said it was the con- sensus of the board that the project has viable potential but would like to see the plans before approval is given. ZBA Minutes Page 9 Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that a footprint of the project be submitted with elevations prior to con- struction starting. There was no second to the motion. Motion died. Boardmember Thede made a motion to table the variance until next regular meet- ing or a special meeting if time is a problem. The motion was seconded and passed. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Huddleson, Thede, Nelson. Nays: None. It was established that time was a problem therefore a special meeting will be held May 19, 1989 at 8:30 in the Council Chambers. Other Business At the Board's request, minutes will be sent with the packets. Respectfully submitted. Frank Lancaster, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Liaison