Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/11/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 11, 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 11, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, and Walker. Boardmembers absent were Thede and Johnson. Staff Present: Fernan, Zeigler, Sajwan, Roy Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 13, 1985 - Approved as Published The minutes of the June 13, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1649. Section 118-41(E) by Merrill Ludwig, Owner, 1143 Timber Lane - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot rear yard setback to 10 feet for a garage addition to a single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The petitioner desires to build the garage addition in order to store his camper. There is a 10 foot utility easement in use at the rear of the property and additional land is not available to buy. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Ludwig said that the driveway would be a three car, 16 foot wide driveway. Additionally, he stated that the garage door and driveway would be on the Clearview side of the corner lot. Mr. Ludwig said that he would follow the existing roof line for the garage addition as well. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1652. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a) by Mike Reager, Owner, 1530 Riverside Lane - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required 5 foot parking lot setback along the north lot line to 0 feet for a new mortuary in the IG zone. Hardship pleaded: The property backs up to the railroad. The driveway goes behind the building, therefore, the five foot setback is required. However, since the rear abuts the railroad there is no aesthetic value to landscaping this area. The petitioner would rather spend the money in landscaping in the front of the building. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Mike Reager described how the drive —way will route around the building for traffic purposes. Likewise, Reager said that there are 30 feet from the property line to the railroad tracks and that he would like to avoid extensive landscaping in this back area of the property. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1653. Section 118-41(C) by Bob Heath, Owner, 1104 W. Magnolia — Approved with condition "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 52 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is an older lot, platted with only 52 feet of lot width. Nothing can be built without a variance. There is no additional land available to buy. This same variance was granted on October 25, 1984, but is expiring and the petitioner would like to be granted again. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for hardship stated and since nothing can be built without a variance." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Bob Heath asked for a one year extension of the variance granted in October of 1984 with the same conditions as stated at that time. Mr. Heath explained that the plot plan is different from that in the first appeal, however, he would keep the new plans within the code requirements. Brian Moroney of 1100 W. Magnolia spoke in opposition to the variance. Mr. Moroney felt that the 8 foot reduction in lot width was too much and that it wouldn't fit in with the neighborhood. In addition, Moroney said that he felt that Mr. Heath does not have a legitimate hardship in that he knew that the lot was 60 feet wide when he bought it. Mr. Moroney did not mind this variance per se however he was concerned about any future implications if this variance should be approved. He stated that he would like to see more definite sets of plans. Boardmember Steve Dodder asked the petitioner if the plans were even close to what will be built. Petitioner Bob Heath replied that the plans were close and that the proposed construction would be a ranch style. Neighbor Brian Moroney asked the Board at this time if a "ranch style" was typically one story and the Board answered "yes". Boardmember Walker commented that in his opinion the front would not fit into the neighborhood. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition of approval for one year. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1654. Withdrawn by petitioner. Appeal No. 1655. Section 118-44(B)(C) by Berk Conway, Prospective Owner, 601 South Sherwood - Denied "---The variance would reduce the minimum lot area from 12,000 square feet to 9,500 square feet and the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new duplex and an existing single family dwelling on one lot in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This lot was platted in the old part of town with only 50 feet lot width and there is not additional land available to buy. ---Staff recommendation: Denial. Hardship is self-imposed. There were no notices or letters received. Boardmember Szopinski told Petitioner Berk Conway that he was concerned that the reduction in area and width was too much for the lot. Petitioner Conway said that he would at least like approval for a duplex. Boardmember Walker felt that for such a high intensity use it should go before the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. Boardmember Szopinski stated as well that this Board did not have the authority to approve this variance and that the ZBA Board could not grant approval for a high density use. Due to the reasons stated, Boardmember Walker made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Walker. Nays: Leiser. Appeal No. 1656. Section 118-43(B) by the Conine Company, Contractor, 215 North Whitcomb - Tabled to the next ZBA meeting Due to the fact thatthe Petitioner Conine Company was not present to represent the variance, Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to table this appeal to the next ZBA meeting. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1657. Section 118-810)(3)(h) by Gayle McCartney (Golden Meadows Swim Club), Owner, 4360 McMurray - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for a recreational use from two spaces per three employees to zero in the IP zone. Hardship pleaded: The petitioner's desire to eliminate the parking since there will only be two employees (lifeguards, r etc.) during the for the members traffic. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." summer months only. This pool is only and they don't anticipate any There were no notices or letters received. Joanne Troutman was present representing the petitioner, Golden Meadows Swim Club. Ms. Troutman stated that the site would be a "walk -to" facility and that if parking should be needed there were 22 spaces along the street for parking. Troutman said that at present they had 86 members with an anticipated membership total of 175. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1658. Section 118-44 by John Allen, Prospective Owner, 528 West Magnolia - Approved "---The variance would reduce the minimum lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet and the side yard setback along street frontage from 15 feet to 6.5 feet for a duplex in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This is an existing single family dwellinig on a lot in the old part of town platted at 45 feet lot width. The petitioner desires to add a second story, following the existing building lines, creating a two-family dwelling. There is no additional land to buy. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. Although the hardship is self-imposed it doesn't aggravate the existing non -conforming setback and doesn't increase the impact." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner John Allen explained that his request is to be able to improve the property by adding a second story. Mr. Allen stated that the purchase and construction of this site hinges on the Board's approval. Allen said that should the variance be approved construction would begin in September and take approximately six weeks to complete. Jay Curtis of 524 W. Magnolia spoke in opposition to the variance. Mr. Curtis was concerned that if approved the neighborhood would move in transition to rentals. Curtis would like to see that familys remain in the neighborhood and fears that this variance would allow a change in the composition of the neighborhood for life. In addition, Curtis was concerned about what this may do to the value and marketability of his own property. The Board asked Curtis what the general compostion of the neighborhood was at this time and Curtis replied that it was about 50 percent rentals and 50 percent owners, all single family. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Lieser. Nays: Murphy, Walker. Appeal No. 1659. Section 118-41.1(B) by Steve Arceneaux, Owner, 1636 Waterford Lane - Denied "---The variance would allow the lot area to be less than 3 times the finished floor area of a single family dwelling in the RLP zone. Specifically, the floor area is 2,359 square feet which would require the lot area to be 7,077 square feet. The lot is 6,600 square feet; a 477 square foot reduction. ---Hardship pleaded: The Board denied this variance request as Appeal No. 1642 on June 13, 1985. The petitioner's desire to present new evidence in the form of a petition signed by homeowners in the neighborhood. ---Staff recommendation: Denial. Hardship is self-imposed and is common to other lots in a row, therefore is not unique." No notices were returned. One letter was received which is attached to the minutes. Petitioner Steve Arceneaux said that a previous house of the same lot size and same square footage had been approved. Therefore, they didn't think there would be a problem when they purchased this lot. Likewise, Mr. Arceneaux felt they were a victim of circumstance in that a major investment had already been made in this site which would be lost if the variance should be denied. Boar<member Szopinski said that they would need to reduce the proposed site by 159 square feet in order to build. Arceneaux replied that they had tried to reduce it but they felt it was just too small by reducing 70 square feet off the bedrooms. Boardmember Walker wanted to know why the plan was so inchangeable and Arceneaux replied that they had already put out alot of money for the plans, permit, etc. of the proposed site as it was. Steve Arecneaux, Jr. was also present in support of the variance and stated that they had built the same house on the same size lot last year and didn't need a variance and was wondering just why they needed one this time. Zoning Inspector Anne Fernan replied that the past house unfortunately had slipped by and was approved mistakenly. Boardmember Sopinski felt that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Dodder said that he was concerned that if the Board approved this variance that it would set a precedence for future variances and that he felt they could not approve this variance on the basis of an unfortunate error made the past. Boardmember Lieser felt that the Board did. not have to fall to the precedent should the variance be approved. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to deny the variance based on a self-imposed hardship. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Murphy, Walker. Nays: Lieser. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Bernard Murphy, Chairman Anne Fernan, Staff up t