Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/12/1995} ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 12, 199115- Regular Meeting 8:30am minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 12, 1995 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Breth, Perica, Huddleson, Gustafson, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Members absent: Michelena. The meeting was called to order by Bob Gustafson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Support Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Ann Chantler Peter Barnes Paul Eckman Board chairman Huddleson arrived and chaired the meeting. Appeal 2124, 1139 West Mulberry Street, by Helen Bockman,approved. Section 29-133(2). ----- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home to be built on an undeveloped lot in the RL zone. Petitioners statement of hardship: The lot is a legal, nonconforming lot, which was platted as part of an older subdivision which contains all 50 foot wide lots. This parcel also has a 50 foot lot width. Nothing can be built without a variance. Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this is an older part of town, across from City Park. He stated the lot width was Sol, similar to other lots up and down the street. Board member Breth asked about the 101 on the west side of the lot. Mr. Barnes stated when this area was platted it was in the county. Plans were to have a 60' street go through where the lot is. The 10' was a part of the proposed 60' road. The County never did build the road and then this area was annexed into city limits, and the 60' right-of-way was vacated. Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1995 Page 2 Board chairman Huddleson excused himself at this point stating a conflict of interest. Lucia Liley, attorney for Helen Bockman appeared before the Board. Mrs. Bockman was in the hospital but her daughter, Ms. Gerlock, was present. Ms. Liley stated the Bookman's bought the house in the late 401s. Mrs. Bockman is getting on in years and would like to put her affairs in order. A couple has purchased the lot and would like to build on it. Ms. Liley added the lot was platted in 1880. Ms. Liley said there was a 6' easement owned by the City for a utility line along the east lot line. Mr. Ron Leonard, 1044 Meadowbrook, the purchaser of the lot, appeared before the Board. He stated he has talked to the city officials and they had plans to abandon the line and cap it and would vacate the east lot line. No one was present in opposition of this appeal. Board member Perica stated that the hardship was the narrowness of the lot, and he would support this appeal. Board member Gustafson stated this was an older part of town and an unusual lot. Board member Cuthbertson moved to approve this appeal for the hardship stated. Board member Perica seconded the motion. Yeas: Breth, Perica, Gustafson, Shannon, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. Anneal 2125, 900 Elm Street. by Jana Thornton, denied. Section 29- 167(4). ----- The variance would reduce the rear setback requirement from 15 feet to 3 feet for a 12' X 8 1/2' storage shed. The shed is 11 feet to the peak of the roof. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner contacted the Building Inspection office to determine whether or not a permit would be required for their proposed shed. As long as the shed doesn't exceed 120 square feet and 8 feet in height, a permit is not required and the setback regulations do no apply. There was a misunderstanding as to whether the 8 foot n u • Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1995 Page 3 height applied to the wall height or to the peak of the roof. The owner believed that a permit was not required based on the information received, however finds that a permit is required and setbacks must be complied with based on the 11 foot height. Moving it to comply would place the shed in the middle of the yard. The shed is on an existing foundation. Staff comments: None Board member Cuthbertson excused himself stating a conflict of interest. Mr. Barnes stated this was a corner lot located at Wood and Elm, in the older part of town. The lot is 90' wide, has a 15' rear setback and no alley. Board member Breth asked Mr. Barnes about the 10' easement on the back of the lot. Mr. Barnes stated if this appeal was approved, the easement would have to be vacated by the City and dealt with later. Jana Thornton, owner of the property and her fiancee, Dereck Sherman, appeared before the Board. Mr. Sherman stated he started to build the shed in November. He is a builder and standard walls are 8' so when he called the Building Inspection office to ask if he needed a permit and what the regulations were, he figured the walls must be 81, not the tallest part of the shed. Mr. Sherman said it was 38' from the shed to the fence and if code was met, the shed would be in the middle of the back yard. He added a patio was already there, so he just used that as a foundation to place the shed. Mr. Sherman presented pictures to the Board of the shed already under construction. Ms. Thornton stated that she contacted 7 utilities that could be using the easement and 6 of the 7 said they were not, the 7th was not sure, but checking. She added between 6 and 10 sheds in the neighborhood exceed the 8' limit. She submitted pictures of other sheds in the neighborhood. Ms. Thornton stated they had plans to put up a 6' privacy fence. Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1995 Page 4 Board member Shannon asked Mr. constructed the foundation. Sherman to explain how he Mr. Sherman stated a brick patio existed and he supported the shed with piers at the corner of the patio but the floor of the shed was not cement. Board member Shannon asked Mr. Sherman if it was possible to reduce the height of the roof. Mr. Sherman stated he would have to take the roof off and make the walls smaller. In response to a Board question, Paul Eckman stated the easement would have to be vacated if this appeal was approved. Les Dargo, 609 Wood Street, appeared before the Board in opposition of this appeal. Mr. Dargo stated the shed was an eye sore, it was 11' high and Mr. Dargo sees the shed right outside his window. He said that it seemed odd that Ms. Thorton didn't want the shed too close to her own home, but that it was alright if it was only 9' from his house. Jana Thornton stated the proposed 6' fence would also block his view. She added the shed was not an eye sore, the shed was painted to match the house, sided and shingled. Board member Perica stated he was having a difficult time finding a hardship because there were other possibilities of where to place the shed that met code requirements. Jana Thornton mentioned by putting the shed in the back yard, it would de -value the home. Board member Perica stated it appeared to him there were other places on this corner lot that the shed could be constructed and still meet setback requirements. The shed as it now stands obstructs the entire view for the neighbor. Board member Breth stated the shed could be built on the side of the garage. Board member Gustafson stated he could not find a hardship that was not self-imposed. He too stated there were other places on the lot to construct the shed. Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1995 Page 5 Board member Gustafson moved to deny appeal 2125 for the lack of hardship. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Breth, Perica, Huddleson, Gustafson, Shannon. The motion passed. The meeting was adjourned. Chuck Huddleson, Chairman i �� /3 Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin.