Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/13/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 13, 1985, Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 13, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Boardmembers absent were Szopinski and Dodder. Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Roy Minutes of the Regular.Meeting of May 9, 1985 - Approved as Published The minutes of the May 9, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1639. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)[6] by Willard Wright, Owner, 1556 Riverside - Approved with condition "---The variance would eliminate the required 5 foot landscape parking lot setback along the west lot line, eliminate the requirement to provide 6% interior parking lot landscaping, and reduce the required landscape setback along the street from 15 feet to 7 feet for an existing mixed -use commercial building in the IG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The building and parking lot are existing. The owner is remodeling a second story area in the building for a new tenant - a bible study, self-defense use. This change of use requires upgrading the parking lot. If all the requirements were met, much of the parking and driveways would no longer be useable. The owner will put in a 7 foot landscape area along the street. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The new user will only use the building a couple of times a week, and the street landscaping will improve the area considerably. There were no notices or letters received. This item was tabled until the end of the meeting but will be in order for minute purposes. Petitioner Wright said that he will try to work with the City on landscaping the area by the street but all of the utilities are in that area and he thought it would cause problems when backing out of the parking stalls. Boardmember Lieser said that she had worked in that building and parking was a problem which landscaping would complicate even more. -1- • The Board felt that landscaping was definitely needed, at least by the street and asked Mr. Wright to submit a landscape plan to the City Arborist for approval. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that landscaping plans be submitted to the City Arborist for the 7 foot area along the street. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Thede Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1640. Section 118-91(C) by David Kormandy, listing agent, 804 S. Taft Hill - Approved with conditions "---The variance would allow a "For Sale" sign to be 24 square feet instead of the required 6 square feet. The sign would be for a proposed multi -family site in a residential zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The sign is advertising a 10 acre tract. The property drops in elevation from the street, so to have a sign large enough to read on a large parcel of land, the petitioner is requesting a variance for a 24 square foot sign. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for 12 months." Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the sign is allowed for 6 months only. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1641. Section 118-81(F)(1) by William Gibson, Owner, 1613 Sudbury Ct. - Approved. "---The variance would allow a 6 foot high solid wood fence to be erected at the front property line rather than being setback 20 feet for a single family dwelling in the RLP zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This is a corner lot with the house facing a legal side yard street frontage. The owner desires to enclose his backyard for privacy. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said that the Board had seen this situation many times in the past and showed the Board slides of the property. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. -2- Appeal No. 1642. Section 118.41.1(B) by Steve Arceneaux, Owner, 1636 Waterford Ln. -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 2359 square feet, which would require the lot area to be 7077 square feet. The lot is only 6600 square feet - a 477 square foot reduction. ---Hardship pleaded: To change the total area ruins the floor plan of the house and it is impractical to purchase a portion of the adjacent lot since that would create a non -conforming lot. ---Staff recommendation: None." No notices were returned. One letter was received which is attached to the minutes. Steve Arceneaux explained that he was having a general contractor build a spec home on this lot. The lot was designed just right to have a walk -out basement. They have spent much money having the house designed and didn't realize the house was too big because all of the setbacks were being met. Boardmember Johnson felt that there was no hardship. Boardmember Murphy felt that all of the other houses were large in the neighborhood and that the size would fit into the neighborhood. Boardmember Walker said that he felt when the City platted this subdivision it was with the intension of getting a mixture of different size homes. The Boardmembers asked to look at the plat. After looking at the plat it was brought up that all remaining lots would need variances for this size house also. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy. Nays: Thede, Walker, Johnson. The variance was denied. Appeal No. 1643. Section 118-41(F) by Larry Watson, Owner, 2651 W. Lake Street - Denied "---The variance would reduce the required side q yard setback on the south side from 5 feet to 0 feet for a redwood lattice porch cover on a single family home in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The petitioner would like to build this trellace to the property line to achieve a better buffer between his house and the neighbors, and view it as a quality of life issue. He will be planting vines on it, so it will almost be a form of landscaping. ---Denial of the request to locate the trellace at a 0 foot setback since there is no way it can comply with the building code. The building code requires at least a 3 foot setback." -3- No notices or letters were received. Boardmember Walker said that there was other treatment for the problem i.e., landscaping and felt that no hardship existed. Due to this fact Boardmember Walker made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy. Nays: Lieser. Appeal No. 1644. Section 118-81(C)(1) by Brad Petschele, renter, 416 West St. - Approved "---The variance would allow an existing detached one car garage to be used in connection with a home occupation. Specifically, the petitioner would like to be able to store tools, sprinkler system parts, and equipment in this detached building instead of in the house as required by code. ---Hardship pleaded: There is no room in the house to store this type of equipment, and it makes more sense to store these items in a garage. There will be no exterior storage on the premises. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned. One letter was received which is attached to the minutes. Petitioner Petschele stated that he did not own the property, but rented it. He had checked with the owners of the property and they had no problem with him requesting a variance for this reason. Mr. Petschele felt that the neighbors letter had nothing to do with his variance request. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that it apply only to Mr. Petschele for the purpose of storing landscaping and sprinkler equipment in a garage. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1645. Section 118-43(E), 118-43(F) by Dick Gast, Owner, 1415 Whedbee - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required rear q yard setback from 15 feet to 1.5 feet and the side yard setback along the alley from 5 feet to 0 feet for a detached, two car garage in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The rear yard is quite shallow and due to the location of an established tree and the patio, there isn't any way to move the garage further away from the rear lot line. The petitioner feels that moving it 5 feet from the side lot line would just make the back yard even smaller. -4- ---Staff recommendation: Approval of the rear yard request, denial of the side yard request. We require 20 feet of backup behind the garage, and the alley is dedicated with a width of 20 feet. However, there is a very dense hedge along the north side of the alley, making the effective backup less than 20 feet. It is conceivable that a car backing out of a garage with a zero setback would be running into the hedge." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Dick Gast explained his situation to the Board by pointing out where the hedge and fence were on his lot. After hearing Mr. Gast's explanation, Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1646. Section 118-81(D)(3)(g) by City Parks & Recreation, 4324 Mc Murry - Approved "---The variance would allow a recreational use in a residential zone to provide zero off street parking instead of the one space per four person capacity required. The use is a park consisting of two tennis courts, a playground, and playfields. ---Hardship pleaded: The park is intended as a small neighborhood park to serve the adjacent residents and does not provide facilities which will generate parking needs. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for the hardship stated." There were no notices or letters received.. Leslie Stumpe, representing City Parks & Recreation, told the Board that there would be no playfields at this park. It is intended for a neighborhood park with mostly walking traffic. Bill Tiley spoke regarding the variance. Mr. Tiley said that he had donated part of the land for the park but wonders why Whalers Cove park provides parking spaces and this park doesn't. He felt that people would be coming from across Lemay and would be driving. He said that he is negotiating with the neighborhood association to build a pool and according to City regulations, would have to provide parking. Mr. Tiley felt that it would help if the park provided some parking also. JoAnn Troutline, Golden Meadows Subdivision Association, said that she was in favor of the variance. Ms. Troutline said that there was plenty of street parking available and a parking lot was not needed. Park chairman, Tina Kirby, said that the neighbors did not want parking spaces. That would mean asphalt and they would rather see it grassed. Even though the park has 11 acres, a detention pond takes up 1/2 of the park. She stated that it was not even certain that the Association would be buying Mr. Tiley's land at this point because they are still -5- looking at other property. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1647. Section 118-43(E) by Elaine Roberts, Owner, 509 E. Plum St., - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for a family room addition to a single family residence in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This is a half lot in the old part of town. The existing structure is only setback 8 feet from the rear property line and the owners wish.to continue the line of the building. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. No notices or letters were received. Boardmember Murphy stepped down because of a conflict of interest. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the variance to the Board and pointed out the property on the slides. He stated the similarity of this variance to others in the older part of town. Boardmember Johnson made motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1648. VOID Appeal No. 1649. Tabled until next month. Petitioner not present. Appeal No. 1650. VOID Appeal No. 1651. Section 118-81(F)(3) by Nancy Girardi, Owner, 1649 Shenandoah Cr. - Approved with condition "---The variance would allow part of a 6 foot fence to be located within 75 feet of the center of the intersection of two streets. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is not really at a true intersection and there is no visibility problems. The lot is an irregular shape and the house is set at an angle. In order to maximize the useable back yard, the petitioner. would like to extend the fence as much as possible. ---Staff recommendation: Approval due to the fact that this is not a true intersection and there are no visibility problems. Also, the entire fence along the south lot line is more than 75 feet from the intersection, so it could stay up without a variance, and it projects out to the street as far as any of the rest of the fence" -6- Ll There were no notices returned the variance. One letter was received in favor of Neighbor Tina Kirby, 1632 Shenandoah, was not opposed to the whole fence but asked that one small 6 foot section be eliminated or moved. She further explained that a school bus stop is located at this point and even though the fence does not block total visibility, it would provide enough additional visibility to make it safer for the children who were playing in the area and for the bus stop if that 6 foot section were removed. The Board asked the Girardi's if they had any problem with this. The Girardis said they could remove a section of fence. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the fence be installed as per the amended site plan submitted by the Girardis. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Thede, Johnson, Walker, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. It was suggested that "Other Business" be discussed at the next meeting when more members were present. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Bernard Murphy, Chairman 1.e� 13 Peter Barnes, Staff Support POUVE VALLEY CONSTRUCTI CO., INC. BLOCH ENTERPRISES,. 1311 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 OHiee Phone 482-919, i/ June 10, 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attention: Peter Barnes RE: Appeal #1642 Dear Mr. Barnes: We own property directly adjacent to the property in question, 1636 Waterford Lane. It is our opinion and feelings that the request for the variance, which would allow a larger home to be placed on the lot, would be totally acceptable by us and that we encourage the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the variance without question. ThWL.Bloch nsi e ing this matter. Si Pe PLB/kt cc: Steve Arceneaux, Owner • June 10, 1985 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: APPEAL #1651 Dear Mr. Barnes: I am responding to the Notice you sent regarding the proposed fence at 1649 Shenandoah Circle to be built by Tony and Nancy Girardi. I do not believe this proposed fence to be a detriment to people's vision while traveling on Shenandoah. As a matter of fact, people should not be driving fast on that street anyway as there are always so many small children playing near that street. I would recommend, however, that if this fence is completed, the owners not plant any shrubs or trees along the outside of the fence, as then it would become dangerous. If I can answer any further questions, please call. Sincere E Gal'b-.Qjichert 1640 Shenandoah Circle Fort Collins, CO 80525 223-2662 ' .� ��. ��, (� o i � d � � (� �A r-l� � �"` (� � ►- ctJ h RT s �� f-j- Of iT VoTeS, d. olq VPRjRA1C e v� Coje CIS-s� c r {,, Gni Prlce of The d es,aNi.,y � ��' s C=rT0,N CorlhS ANdO�E o C'r►" G n1 JeNT The ! ALj o f the b Z 5I0L)ld Eti✓oro P-F Tl,� TowN ANC► T(��Tax��yeh ;�h A by WAy i w A s Ti-eaT�e-— SRid ow/Vzrs of 1oIs -�-9- ? b3 — T hid 7'o h.(we R I14w yc.i- To de fFcnld My b UT if I �li S CoNTr�NueS L cUi/� N� lvN�ei CoNFrdL,p I'%- �$ ACcV1rC'�i t�u7 Crrn;"Vi7 kyo� r'7 t9A i-k 57' ReSi'de&IT 6TowN�for�yddwN��eTu(�e� Yti i Sv ive / o/ 8' 5- Th(2 1�'i uTe rS is I a— —'-- ulere S�do-r. / oF-r4ei .rN,lds ii�ld r`l�rdwr.vyS Pellet f?lFj4g R1 The-5ide ftR&se qNd 6rakeN 6/ o f MY�'Atpge r,6 /eTT'el- T( �s a vei n?1 )&3Al �'rdm Tl7 SrsNed by sad dWNet-s oco�UeFs df �l7isProPerTJ FISAiu. or H� �'"ThaT Th�S Will NaT hA1l'ea! _.t_ Tio/V will beTAkelV! 1.esRi l of b ►� e A l- ��Te v 1` ATe To be- A s a re N e Fi d. 6 U I T. K N,j pro (n T h e 5TA''T GJhAT These RaS0m;IV.3 HNcj vnr1Raco-s. 70 ►o o Nice S-aIe-T VPLg.4BokHaq, VS They seem To D.-Aces u,Vde--srre p tiles be cpu S` o f the jo RewT, RVd L'" c4ou3hi if YOU LUOU(d WAN? OAJC 1 N �,Oe Aye-( r- Warkzd Off" For 6f T y Ye-Ars To o wN horrre.To �%6orHoo�J S�2Ni�r �eRtS WhHTJ id t geT HiPP71eA re5 INO'rds `rY !ni Nr�oul r BgrK. iu ' Po cqS 77NeVel-.wRS oN f'eod 5—ron1 PS.fouNd Sc �-�� �. rod... h�ue R hd 177,4,vy [3(rSTer5o" My HR/uc! � s bu7 r/�ry f',�rw oN MJ SljpocvN n1 y(o9YCRr-S FF/1 rN Colo . GeJi-rk I N !vo rIA2je o� he?hc�RKrv� -pe vu�/ ada he ��ud Z CRN STiil ChAr,9e J77Y9roc`Ires iiu ��r��oN cuio�Sr veY XeN.