HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/13/1997ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
March 13, 1997
8:30am
II Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes II
Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h)
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 13, 1997, in
the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were
present: Gustafson, Stockover, Lieser, Shannon, Keating, Felner
Absent: Breth
Staff Present: Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector
Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support
Staff absent: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Lieser.
The minutes from the February 1997 meeting were approved.
Appeal 2193 107 N. Mack Street by Fred Schaulin owner, NCL zone approved
Section 29-119(3) and (4)
--- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15' to 12' 3", and
reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to V in order to allow a sun room
addition to the south side of the house, and allow the existing covered porch on
the rear of the home to be enclosed. The sun room will line up with the existing
front wall of the home.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is narrow, only 50' deep. The existing
home is already setback only 12' and the sun room will be further setback at 12'
3". The existing rear porch is already at a 5' setback, enclosing it will not
increase the degree of nonconformity.
--- Staff comments: The front setback of the existing home at 12' appears to be
consistent with the setback of the other homes on the block.
ZBA
March 13, 1997
Page 2
Zoning Inspector Lopez presented slides illustrating property under consideration.
The property is long and narrow - very limited in terms of depth. The south side is
where the proposed sun room will be installed and the back porch will be enclosed.
Even though it is technically a structure, the fact that they are adding walls to it requires
a variance to the 15' rear yard setback reducing it to the proposed 5'.
Board questions:
Board member Lieser asked how close is the nearest structure behind the proposed
addition.
Lopez explained that the garage in the back of a house on W. Mountain Avenue sits
about five feet from the property line. The rear yard setback will be reduced to five feet.
The total distance between the garage and proposed sun room addition will be around
8-10 feet.
Petitioner, Fred Schaulin, addressed the Board. Schaulin stated the problem with the
lot is that it is long and narrow which is the reason he needs the variance for the
setback. He explained that the nonconformity will not be any worse than it already is
because the porch exists and the sun room on the front of the house will be even
further setback from the street. He stated the sun room addition and enclosed back
porch would be an improvement to the property, energy efficient for the house, and
would not affect any of the neighbors.
Board member Shannon expressed an interest in the type materials that would be
used.
Schaulin responded that they would be using the new style vinyl siding for the whole
house that is washable, non-paintable, and low maintenance.
Shannon inquired about the roof lines: will they be maintaining the same roof lines and
will the back porch roof line change?
Schaulin explained that the sun room addition will have a shed roof that matches the
slope of the back porch and the back porch roof will not change because they are only
enclosing this.
Shannon asked Lopez if there is any danger of a fire hazard with the addition being so
C�
•
ZBA
March 13, 1997
Page 3
close to the garage.
Lopez responded that at five feet they will be within the requirements for the building
code since the building code requires a minimum three foot separation between
property line to building.
Board Discussion:
Board member Gustafson stated that currently the petitioner's house does not meet any of the
setback requirements as it sits and any addition would have to go before the Board. So, he
definitely has a hardship based on the depth of his property.
Shannon agreed with Gustafson and motioned to approve appeal 2193 for the hardship created
by the size of the lot.
Board member Keating seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Gustafson, Stockover, Lieser, Shannon, Keating, Feiner
Nays: none
Appeal 2194 211 W. Mulberry Street by Bruce Froseth owner, BL zone approved
Section 29-303
--- The variance would reduce the required side setback along the west lot line adjacent to
the alley from 20' to 6' in order to allow a covered front porch to be built onto the home, in
the location where a porch originally existed.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The only setback required in this zone is 20' from an
alley or zoning district line. An alley happens to be on the west side of the lot, however,
the home is already existing at a 6' setback and the proposed porch will be located where
the original porch was. This is where the front door is, so it is really the only place for the
porch. (This property was zoned BG until 1991. The BG zone did not require any
setbacks)
--- Staff comments: The front porch addition will add to the character of the home. The
building on the west side of the alley has a similar alley setback, so this is not
inconsistent.
•
ZBA
March 13, 1997
Page 4
Zoning Inspector Lopez presented slides illustrating property under consideration.
The property is to the west of King's Auto Sales and one of requirements was that he
had to pave the alley. In the BL zone one of the requirements is that there needs to be
a separation of 20 feet to any alley and, the existing house is reduced considerably
already. The applicant would be adding something similar to the original porch back to
the house and bringing the character of the house back to what it once was.
Lopez showed slides of an identical house on Mountain Avenue which showed what the
original porch may have looked like.
Board questions: None
Petitioner, Bruce Froseth, stated that they want to build a porch similar to the one in the
slide of the house on Mountain Avenue. He explained that the new porch won't have
the brick coming across, will have wood steps, and won't go all the way back to the far
end of the house as the original one did. He stated they are also building a porch on
the rear of the house.
Board Discussion: None
Gustafson stated the petitioner clearly has a hardship based on the location of the
building on the property and that the porch will add to the character of the house.
He moved to approve appeal 2194 with the hardship stated.
Keating seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Gustafson, Stockover, Lieser, Shannon, Keating, Feiner
Nays: none
Eva Lieser, Vice Chairperson
I
Gary opez, in pector