Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/08/1996Lk4yr) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING February 8, 1996 8:45am II Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes II Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 8, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner, Huddleson. Board members absent: Gustafson. Staff members present: Peter Barnes Ann Chantler Anneal 2159 319 Alpert Avenue by Freestone and Carrie Harrod Approved, Section 29-133(3). ----- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14.3 feet in order to allow a covered front porch to be added to a proposed addition. The front wall of the existing home is already only 13.3 feet from the front lot line. The new porch will be 1 foot further back than the existing wall. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ----- Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, stated Alpert was a short street and some houses on the street were non -conforming. Barnes mentioned there was slope in the back of the house. Kyle Freestone, owner, appeared before the Board. He said the slope in the back of the house is natural and it slopes down to Spring creek. He said the present house only has 650 square feet, they would like to add more space and keep in the character of the neighborhood with a covered porch. Zoning Board of Appeals February 8, 1996 Page 2 Breth said the lot was 95' wide so the lot width was not a hardship. He added the present house is non -conforming, but it appeared there was plenty of room to build an addition. Freestone said the slope on the back of the lot was a hardship, the present house was only 25' deep and it would be very difficult to physically attach the addition to the back if it was moved further south. He added the house was built in 1940 and the addition planned would match the current architecture of the house. If they tried to build on to the back of the house, it would look odd. Barnes said the front wall of the addition would comply with the 20' setback, only the porch encroaches. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Huddleson said the lot width was not narrow, but the fact the slope in the back affects the way the addition is constructed and that the house is presently non -conforming, as well as other homes on the street it all could be considered a hardship. Breth agreed the hardship could be the topography of the lot. Board member Shannon moved to approve Appeal 2159 for a topographical hardship. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner, Huddleson. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2160 601E Elizabeth by Bud and Meredy Razey. approved Section 29-119(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from, 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow a second floor addition to be constructed over a portion of the rear of the house. The new wall will be constructed over the existing first floor wall, which is already only 3.5 feet from the lot line. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing roof over this portion of the home is a flat roof, which is in constant need of repair. The existing home is already nonconforming with regard to setbacks. ---- Staff comments: None 0 • Zoning Board of Appeals February 8, 1996 Page 3 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, discussed the legal front/side yard setbacks for a corner lot. He said the addition with regard to this appeal was originally the garage and had a flat roof. He said the garage was later turned into living space. Bud Razey, owner, appeared before the Board. He said the garage was converted to a family room, it has a flat roof and is constantly leaking. He said the house is older and with the converting of the flat roof to a pitched roof, they would like to add another bathroom and some storage. Breath asked for clarification why the Board needed to decide this case. Barnes said it was technical in the code, the appellants were actually adding floor space to the home and any new construction must comply with the setbacks. Razey said if they built according to code, the addition would not line up with what is presently there and it would look strange. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Huddleson said the hardship was the existing structure and to add on to meet code would look strange. He added he thought the original lot was re -subdivided years ago, and that probably resulted in the nonconforming situation. Barnes confirmed that the lot was not in it's original configuration. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2160 for the combination of 1) the exiting lot has been subdivided and so is not self-imposed and 2) the technicality of the roof is the only reason for the appeal, thus causing exceptional circumstances. Board member Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner, Huddleson. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2161, 2300 Stanford Rd by Mitch Murray. denied. Section 29-133(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Columbia Avenue from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow the construction of a new detached two -car garage to be located to the rear of the existing house. Zoning Board of Appeals February 8, 1996 Page 4 ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Locating the garage in compliance with both the 15 foot rear and 15 foot side setbacks would result in the garage being located in the middle of the back yard. This would block the site lines to much of the yard, resulting in safety concerns for the petitioner's children, and also result in less usable space. Granting the variance would insulate the backyard from the street, creating a safer back yard. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, stated this house is located on a corner in the South College Heights neighborhood and most all the houses have 1 car attached garages. Mitch Murray, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated if they built the garage according to the required setbacks, the new garage would be in the middle of the backyard and it would block two windows of the house. He said the present garage is only I V wide and too narrow to put his car in the garage and open the car doors. He said another reason he wants to put the garage at the proposed location on the lot is safety for his children, he wouldn't be able to see them with the garage in the middle of the back yard. MunTy added Columbia Street is wide and makes access easier for the proposed garage. No one was present in favor or in oppostition of this appeal. Huddleson stated there was no hardship, losing backyard space was not a hardship. Murray stated that the layout of the house, the present narrow garage, the site lines being a safety issue and the loss of windows were all hardships. Board member Huddleson stated there was still no hardship, nothing unusual about the lot that prevented compliance with the code. Board member Shannon agreed. Board member Huddleson moved to deny Appeal 2161 for a lack of hardship. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner, Huddleson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Board member Huddleson was excused from the meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals February 8, 1996 Page 5 Appeal 2162 3819-3917 Harbor Walk Lane appealing a determination made by staff. by Mike Sollenberger. Section 29-1, definition of "sign". The petitioner is requesting that the Board determine whether or not a sail boat "relief sculpture" that is carved into each of the 11 columns of a sound abatement wall is considered to be a "work of art", and is thereby exempted from the regulations of the City Sign Code. City staff has determined that if the "sculptures" are repetitive (a majority, or all 11 being alike) then they become a logo or emblem which conveys a recognizable identify or distinction, and which by reason of their color or manner of display, attracts attention to the premises or is used as a means of identification. This determination means that staff would consider them to be signs, and the Code would not allow such a sculpture to be placed on each column. The petitioner would like the Board to review staff s determination. A letter was submitted by Linda Ripley of Ripley and Associates, attached. A photo of where the fence would go was also submitted to the Board. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, reviewed the sign code and explained his position. He said the "logo" would appear 11 times, exactly the same, identifies the area, and therefore qualifies as a sign. Linda Ripley appeared before the Board. She told the Board the sailboats on the fence were not intended to be a logo, but to enhance the fence/wall. She explained the color scheme and offered to change colors if needed. Mike Sollenberger, developer, appeared before the Board. He said the "artwork" would add to the wall, and added there was no entrance sign into the subdivision. Board member Lieser said she disagreed with Barnes's determination, the artwork on the wall was art, not a sign. After additional Board discussion, Board member Felner moved to classify the sailboats as a work of art, with the condition that the sailboats cannot be used in the future as a logo. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Breth, Shannon, Felner. Nays: None. The motion passed. Zoning Board of Appeals February 8, 1996 Page 6 The meeting was adjourned. jj Marty Breth, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin. A note from Mayor Azari: Mayor Azari wanted to me to pass on to the Board she very much appreciates all you do. She said often times when a Board does their job as well as this Board, they don't get much attention. She wants you to know just because this Board doesn't hear much from her, she knows you are doing a good job.