HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/08/1988f
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 8, 1988
Regular Meeting — 8:30 A.M.
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
December 8, 1988 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Wilmarth, Thede,
Lancaster, Lawton, Nelson and Huddleson.
Boardmembers absent: Coleman.
Staff present: Barnes and Goode.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of November 10, 1988, Approved as Published
The minutes of the November 10, 1988 regular meeting were unanimously
approved.
Appeal #1903. Section: 29-133 (3), by Royal 6 Carolyn Thompson, 401
Bluejay — Denied.
"---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet
to 7.5 feet for a carport addition to a single family dwelling in the
RL zone.
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner owns two classic
show cars which must be kept in a locked garage for insurance purposes.
The petitioner's only garage therefore is used to house the show cars
and there has been no place to park their personal cars in a protected
area. The petitioner desires to add the carport in order to protect
their two personal cars. The construction of the carport was started
without a permit due to a communication error between the owner and the
person helping build the carport. Each thought the other was taking
care of obtaining it. This is the only feasible location to build it.
---Staff comments: For the most part, this appears to be a self—imposed
hardship. However, because this is a corner lot, wherein the front of
the house is actually facing the legal side, a situation exists which
the Board has seen in the past. That being, that the legal front yard
is in actuality the side of the house. The code requires that the
street side yard setback on a corner lot be only 15 feet, instead of
the 20 feet which is required for a front yard setback. This being the
case, there may be some justification to reduce the legal front setback
from 20 feet to 15 feet based on previous appeals. If the Board were
to grant a reduction to 15 feet, 7.5 feet of the carport would have to
be removed. Since this is an open carport, the structure does not
obstruct site distances required for traffic safety."
ZBA Minutes December 8, 1988
Page 2
No notices were returned, but the following letter was received:
"December 7, 1988
I am against the variance of code section 29-133(3). I feel that the
structure the Thompson's have raised, is an eye sore and is degrading to
the neighborhood, which will in turn lower the property value of homes in
the area. The allowance for one structure to be raised may open doors for
others who feel the need to raise structures.
Leland R. Lapp, Jr.
2905 Ringneck Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526"
This lot is located at the corner of Blue Jay and Ringneck. The house
faces Blue Jay, the legal side yard, but the practical front yard. The
actual side of the house faces Ringneck, the legal front yard, but the
practical side yard. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said the code
considers the legal front to be that part of the lot with the least amount
of frontage. In this case, the legal front is Ringneck. A 20 foot front
yard setback is required. In the past, the Board has seen similar corner
lot situations. In some of those situations, variances were granted to
allow a 15 foot setback instead of the 20 feet which is required. The
Justification being, the legal front yard is in actuality the side of the
house and is the legal front yard is the location of the carport addition
that construction has been started on. A "stop work" order has been issued
because a building permit was not obtained. Work on the structure has been
halted until a decision whether or not to grant a variance is made by the
Board. If the Board were to grant a setback reduction to 15 feet, 7.5 feet
of the carport would have to be removed. If the Board were to deny a
setback reduction, 12.5 feet of the carport would have to be removed.
Additionally, because this is an open carport structure, and because the
setback is measured from behind the property line, which in this case is
located 7.5 feet behind the walk, site distance for traffic safety is
adequate.
Royal Thompson appeared. He explained that he had discussed the need to
obtain a building permit with the person helping build the carport, and
each thought the other was going to take care of getting it. Consequently,
a permit was not obtained by either of them.
The petitioner's neighbors: John and Kay Watson, 2900 Eagle; Merle Auisten,
2909 Ringneck; and Tom Brinkel, 2816 Ringneck; spoke in opposition of the
variance. They voiced their concern over the lack of a legitimate or
practical need to alter the zoning code. The point was made that the
classic show cars could be stored at any number of available
private facilities. They feel the petitioner is being insensitive to the
neighborhood, and are afraid if this variance is granted, it would set a
precedence for others in the neighborhood to do the same. This would be
both aesthetically and economically detrimental to the neighborhood. The
issue of safety is also a concern. Ringneck is a Poudre R-1 bus route and
site distance at this corner is greatly obstructed by the large tree
located there, especially when it is completely leafed out spring through
fall.
ZBA Minutes December 8, 1988
Page 3
Through discussion, the Board discovered the original attached garage had
been converted into additional living space by this owner, and a detached
two —car garage was built to replace it. The overall feeling of the Board
is the petitioner has imposed the restriction of the lack of protective
parking for his vehicles on himself. Therefore because of the self—imposed
nature of the hardship, along with the issues raised by the neighbors,
Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was
seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Thede, Lancaster, Lawton, Nelson
and Huddleson. Nays: None.
Appeal 51904. Section: 29-178 (5), by The City of Fort Collins, and
Respite Care, 400 Wood St. — Approved with conditions.
"---The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the
north lot line from 9 feet to 5 feet for a one—story bedroom and
screened porch addition to the Respite Care facility. Uses other than
one— and two—family dwellings require a setback of one foot for every 3
feet of building height. The required setback for one— and two—family
dwellings is a flat 5 feet.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter.
---Staff comments: None"
One notice was returned and the following letter was received from the
petitioner:
"November 22, 1988
Peter Barnes
Zoning Administration
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Barnes:
The Board of Directors of Respite Care, Inc. respectfully request your
review of our request for a zoning variance in order to make the necessary
addition to our current building at 400 North Wood Street.
The addition of another downstairs bedroom will provide the additional
space necessary to qualify for four more children. The State of Colorado
has changed the rules and regulations governing Day Care Homes and
increased the number of children that can be cared for from eight to
twelve if additional staff and space requirements are met. Respite Care
exceeds the staff —to —child ratio already. Requests for care of handicapped
children at Respite Care often exceeds our licensing, therefore we may have
to turn a family away or put them on a waiting list. We are the only
facility in Larimer County providing respite care service and our goal is
to be able to provide the service when it is requested. We provided 19,404
hours of care to 75 different families in 1987.
ZBA Minutes December 8, 1988
Page 4
Currently our overnight facilities include two upstairs bedrooms and one
downstairs bedroom. The addition of a second bedroom downstairs eliminates
the necessity of having to carry children up the stairs. The addition of
this room would make a major difference in the program because it would
allow us to provide care in the safest possible environment. Respite care
would be available to more parents for their children because of the
additional space available.
Wheelchair accessibility is one of our key issues, and being able to
provide quality service, whether inside or outside, to all children
regardless of their handicapping condition, is important. The addition of
an outside deck area that would be screened —in and have several entrance
points would allow us to take wheelchair children outside and provide care
in a less restrictive environment.
CDBG approved a fire sprinkler system to be installed as well as the
addition of the bedroom and outside deck area. Respite Care has one exit
from the upstairs area of the house which is where the children presently
sleep. It was the recommendation of the fire department that a sprinkler
system be installed versus having to build a fire escape from the second
floor. Should there be a fire, even if a fire escape were in place, it
would be difficult to get children out in a timely fashion.
Our request to CDBG was for rehabilitation and removal of architectural
barriers. The location of the second bedroom was one of logistics and we
considered two alternative designs from our architectural firm. One off
the kitchen and one off the back of the house. The kitchen at Respite Care
is adequate, though small. To reduce that space would be unacceptable and
would make the addition of the screened —in porch area impossible since that
is the location of that addition. The other option would reduce the size
of our playground, which meets the requirements at the state level for our
licensing, but reducing the area would jeopardize that licensing.
These changes for Respite Care would help insure that handicapped children
continue to receive the best possible care in a safe and barrier —free
environment.
We appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to hearing
from your. Should you need any additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Dallow
President, Board of Directors"
Boardmember Auddleson withdrew from voting on this appeal due to a
potential conflict of interest.
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the Board, that in the past, a
variance was granted to reduce the lot width of this property. A variance
is now being requested to reduce the required side yard setback from 9 feet
to 5 feet for the proposed addition.
ZBA Minutes December 8, 1988
Page 5
Single family homes in this area require a 5 foot setback from the property
line. Because this facility is a use other than a one— or two—family
dwelling, the setback is based on the overall height of the building. The
building is 27 feet high, a setback of 1 foot for every 3 feet of building
height is required. In this case a 9 foot side yard setback is required.
Steve White, The City of Fort Collins' Facilities Project Manager, and
Larry Tramps, an architect representing The Architectural Resource Group
submitted concept drawings for the proposed addition. Mr. Tramps said the
addition will include one bedroom and a screened porch. The existing
stairway exit from the basement will be maintained by enclosing it within
the addition. Based on availability, the brick used for the addition will
match the existing building, and the roof lines will tie into the existing
structure to remain consistent with the architectural character of the
home. He indicated the plans are conceptual. If the Board decides to
grant this variance, the plans will be finished and submitted for
examination by the building inspection and zoning staff for code
compliance.
Sherri Felton, Director of Respite Care, Inc., explained that Respite Care
is a short—term day care facility that provides relief care for parents of
handicapped children. The facility also provides overnight care.
The proposal to add a bedroom onto the main level of the house will
eliminate the necessity of having to carry children up the stairs to a
bedroom located there. Safety for the children, as well as the staff is
the main issue, but the addition will also provide necessary space required
by the State of Colorado to increase the number of children that can be
cared for during non —school hours at this facility. It is also proposed to
build a screened porch behind the bedroom addition. This deck area is
designed for severely handicapped children that are confined to
wheelchairs. The screened —in area will create a less restrictive
environment for these children, as well as provide safety from balls being
thrown by the other children using the playground.
Joe and Teresa Cienfuegoes and John Updahl, adjacent property owners,
voiced their concern over whether adequate play area is being provided.
They feel the proposed addition will take up the already small area. Ms.
Felton argued that the location of the proposed bedroom addition is
presently the location of a small storage shed, and the proposed screened
porch will cover existing basement window wells for efficient use of this
area. Presently the size of the play area exceeds State regulations. The
proposed addition will not encroach upon the existing play area, it will
continue to meet the State's regulations.
Through further discussion, it was determined that the neighbors actually
have no real objection to the addition, but are mainly concerned with the
present parking problems. Mr. Cienfuegoes said when this project was
proposed, the City assured him that off—street parking would be provided.
Parking spaces are provided off the alley, located at the rear of the play
area, but the staff, volunteers and parents park along the curb on the
north side of his property. He recalls that several years ago the fence
between the play area and parking lot was moved back, causing a reduction
in parking area. Mr. Barnes said for a facility of this nature, the code
ZBA Minutes December 8, 1988
Page 6
requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet of building area. This
facility is required to provide four spaces but is actually providing six,
moving the fence didn't eliminate any of the six spaces.
Addressing Mr. Cienfuegoes' concerns, Ms. Pelton believes the staff and
volunteers generally park across the street or in other areas to provide
better accessibility for the loading and unloading of the Care —A —Van, other
buses and parents. Additionally, the parking area has no lighting, so
members of the staff who provide care during the evening hours have
safety concerns.
The Boardmembers had no problem dealing with the hardship, they agree the
hardship is the height of the building. Boardmember Lancaster commented
that in regard to setbacks, he feels the intent of the code is met for the
purpose of separation between buildings. In this case, a five foot
separation is adequate since the addition is only one story in height. The
Board feels requirements for the play ground area and parking are met, but
strongly suggested that community relations regarding the current parking
problems be addressed by Ms. Pelton. A motion was made by Boardmember
Nelson to grant the variance, the hardship being the height of the
building. A condition, to design the addition per the preliminary plans
shown to the Board, was placed on the motion. Boardmember Thede seconded
the motion. Yeas: Wilmarth, Thede, Lancaster, Lawton and Nelson. Nays:
None.
Appeal #1905. Section: 29-178 (1), 29-178 (2), 29-178 (5), by Neighbor to
Neighbor, 217 Third Street — Approved.
"---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 square feet
to 4,229 square feet, reduce the lot width requirement from 60 feet to
33.3 feet, and reduce the required side yard setback along the north
lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet 3/4 inch for a house to be moved onto an
existing lot in the RM zone. This house will replace the existing
dwelling unit on the lot.
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is an older platted lot
which doesn't comply with current standards. Because of the narrowness
of the lot it is extremely difficult to find a house that would comply
with the required setbacks. This moved —on home will greatly upgrade
the property and the neighborhood and is a similar variance request to
several which have already been granted in this subdivision.
---Staff comments: Thirteen similar variances have been granted in this
subdivision in the past six years in connection with Neighbor to
Neighbor's efforts to provide better housing in the area. Some of the
variances allowed brand new houses to be built to replace inadequate
ones. Other variances were similar to this, wherein a house is moved
onto the lot and rehabilitated, and the existing house is demolished."
Mr. Barnes stated that the petitioner is an agency that improves housing
opportunities for those in need through the improvement of sub —standard
housing conditions. Historically, 13 variances have been granted to
1 � •
ZBA Minutes December 8, 1988
Page 7
Neighbor —to —Neighbor in this subdivision alone. All lots in the
subdivision are less than the required standard, but this lot, which is
only 33.3 feet wide, is the narrowest.
Beth Ann Smith of Neighbor —to —Neighbor said the existing structure on this
lot is more than 50% dilapidated. The recipient has been on a waiting list
for rehabilitation for the past ten years. It has been extremely difficult
to find a structure with all of the appropriate entrance and exit points to
fit on this lot.
The Board feels Neighbor —to —Neighbor is providing a necessary community
service. As in the past, a legitimate hardship exists because of the
narrowness of the existing lot. A motion was made by Boardmember Thede to
grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster.
Yeas: Thede, Lancaster, Lawton, Nelson and Buddleson. Nays: None.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank Lancaster, Chairman
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
/drg