HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/20/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Special Meeting - March 20, 1987
Minutes
The special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Friday,
March 20, 1987 at 8.30 A.M. in Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins
City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Barnett, Lancaster,
Walker, and Coleman.
Boardmembers Absent (Excused): Lieser, Thede, Lawton.
Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, Brayfield
Appeal # 1799 Section 118-41 (D), by Terry Rowell, Contractor, 1000 W.
Laurel - Variance Discussed. Decision Tabled.
---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Monte
Vista Avenue from 20 feet to 7'6" for a garage addition to a single
family dwelling in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a corner lot. The house
faces the legal side yard, so the legal front yard in reality is used
as a side yard, which requires only a 15 foot setback. A variance was
granted on November 13, 1986, to reduce the setback to 15 feet,
however, it was recently discovered that the setback is actually 716".
This occurred because a pin was found in the sidewalk which was thought
to be the property line, but upon further investigation another pin was
located 10 feet to the west which turned out to be the actual property
line. This was not discovered until the framing inspection had been
done.
---Staff recommendation: None."
No notices were returned, one letter was received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that a variance was granted for the
property in December. It was not discovered to be too close to the
property line until the framing inspection was done. Mr. Barnes said that
everything scales out on the plan that was submitted - the plot plan scales
out, and the garage scales out to what was called out to be a property
line. But when the building inspector was called out to do the framing
inspection he discovered the garage to be only 7'6" from the actual
property line. Mr. Barnes said that the garage as it is does not pose a
visibility hazard for traffic pulling out onto Laurel Street. He then
presented photos to the board showing the alomost completed garage
addition.
Petitioner Terry Rowell spoke in favor of the variance. He did not find
out the error in the property line until after the framing inspection. The
setback and footing inspection was signed off by the City building
t •7.RA Minutes - Mar 20, 1987
Page 2
inspector, and if he had any indication that there was a problem he would
have changed it. Mr. Rowell said that he found a pin in the sidewalk that
he thought showed the property line, but after the framing was done the
City building inspector found another pin buried about 10' back from the
sidewalk. The garage sits back 15 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk.
Boardmember Coleman asked why they looked for the second pin. Mr. Rowell
stated that a neighbor complained that the garage was too close to the
property line, which caused the building inspector to look for another pin.
Boardmember Lancaster asked if the garage addition was the same distance
from the street as was proposed in December, and if the pin in the sidewalk
was what you would expect to see to indicate a property line. Mr. Rowell
stated that the garage addition was built the same distance from the street
as proposed in December. He stated further that the pin in the sidewalk
had a cross, which often indicates a benchmark. He worked off a plat,
using the pin as the property line, which put the garage 1716" back from
what he thought was the property line. Mr. Rowell stated further that they
looked for other pins on the property but couldn't find any. He said they
went to City engineering to find out if the pin was really the property
line, but couldn't find out anything.
Meredith Payne, owner, 1000 W. Laurel, said that he was still not convinced
that the second pin was actually the property line. He was familiar with
construction, and knew that the pins often got moved in the course of
construction.
Daniel Thompson, 623 Del Norte Place, representing the property owners in
the neighborhood, submitted a petition with 27 signatures protesting the
variance. He asked if the setback was measured from the foundation or from
the eaves, and pointed out that the cornice was 36", which put the garage
extremely close to the sidewalk. He said that no other building in the
Mantz subdivision is so close to property line. Mr. Thompson stated
further that when he put a solar addition on his property they measured
exactly how close the structure could be and he wanted to know why the
zoning inspectors did not catch the mistake.
Mr. Barnes clarified that the building inspectors measure the setbacks, not
the zoning inspectors. He stated further that the Building Inspection
Department does check the site plan against the plat, but it is not up to
the Building Inspection Department to determine the property lines. There
was nothing on the site plan to indicate how far the property line is from
the sidewalk.
Boardmember Walker pointed out that only 7 feet of the garage was in
violation, not the entire structure. If any portion of the building had to
be removed, it would be only 7 feet, which would change the visual impact
of the garage a little, but not entirely.
Mr. Thompson stated his concern that if this variance was granted, other
people in the neighborhood would ask for similar variances. Boardmember
Walker explained that each variance is reviewed separately, and part of the
reason this variance was granted was because it was a corner lot where the
' 7,BA Minutes - Ma 20, 1987
Page 3
legal front yard was actually used as a side yard. Mr. Walker said that
there was little chance of another property in the neighborhood having the
same circumstances.
John Nettleton, 636 Monte Vista, said he was neither for or against the
variance. He said that the foundation is 1.5' from the sidewalk, and it
does not block visibility from the street. When the foundation was poured
he thought it was acceptable, but now the garage is framed, it is close.
He was concerned what would happen in the future if others asked for the
same variance.
City Attorney Eckman stated that each appeal has to be presented according
to a hardship specifically for each piece of property. Mr. Eckman said
that it would be unlikely to find another piece of property with the same
circumstances.
Edith Tobin, 627 Monte Vista, said that she did not object at first because
she thought that the addition would not be any farther from the house than
the greenhouse that used to be there. She thought that Mr. Payne was
granted a variance for 5' beyone the house. She said that the structure
appeared to a three car garage from the picture, and she did not see how a
three car garage could be considered a hardship.
Mr. Barnes explained that the variance requested in December 1986 was for a
22' addition to be built 5' closer to the property line than code allowed.
Mrs. Tobin stated that when Mr. Payne spoke to her, he said that it would
be a 5' addition. Mr. Payne replied that she must have misunderstood.
Mrs. Tobin stated further that the eaves overhang so close to the sidewalk
that ice will build up there posing a hazard for Joggers and walkers in the
neighborhood.
Boardmember Lancaster stated that at most, 6 1/2 feet of the addition would
have to be removed. He asked Mrs. Tobin if she thought that would
alleviate the problem. There was further discussion about how far the
addition would extend, and the appearance of the roof line.
Boardmember Walker asked Mr. Barnes why the pin was in the sidewalk, and
how the mistake might have happened. Mr. Barnes replied that strange
things can occur in the older parts of town. Markers can vary from block
to block, and the City owned right -of -way -can vary from block to block.
Boardmember Barnett asked Mr. Payne if he had recently bought the property.
Mr. Payne said that he bought it in August. Mr. Barnett said that he
should have been given a copy of the improvement survey as part of his
title insurance policy. The improvement survey would show everything very
clearly, including the property line. Mr. Barnett asked how the west
property line was located. Mr. Payne said that he used the fence line.
Boardmember Lancaster commented that the neighbors were sent notices of the
variance request at the December meeting, and no one came to express any
opinions about the variance. He said the Board would hope that in the
` ZBA Minutes - Mardi 20, 1987
Page 4
future they would see the neighbors at the first meeting rather than the
second meeting, after the structure is already up.
Boardmember Barnett stated that he voted for the original variance and he
feels the hardship is still valid. But he was still not comfortable with
the sequence of events.
Boardmember Coleman stated that the Board does not require verification of
the actual property lines. Instead, the Board overall appearance,
compatibility, and impact. Later it is locked in with a legal description.
He probably would have voted for a 716" setback.
Mr. Barnes said one difference would have been that the notices that went
out to the neighbors would have stated the variance would be reduced from
20' to 716". That might have made more impact and more people might have
attended the meeting.
Boardmember Barnett said that he might have perceived the variance
differently. Given the size of the variance he might have questioned the
size of the addition. Mr. Barnett said that he wanted a resolution of just
where the property line is. If the Board is considering having them remove
7' of the building, it is necessary to know exact location of the property
line.
City Attorney Eckman said that the Board should not get in the habit of
requiring absolute proof of the property line, but it is a good idea in
this case because the property line is in dispute. It is reasonable to
request a survey. However, that would be different if a property line
could be agreed upon.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to table the appeal until the
petitioner could supply the Board with an improvement survey or other proof
of the location of the lot line. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion.
Yeas: Barnett, Lancaster, Coleman, Walker. Nays: None.
City Attorney Eckman clarified that the improvement survey that was part of
the title insurance would be sufficient verification of the property line.
Peter Barnes, Staff Support
Lloyd Walker, Chairman
C421 0-/
o-u� otZ44-1 a;e 6 3 9-