Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/13/1992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 13, 1992 Regular Meeting - 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 13, 1992 at 8:30am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Board members Wilmarth, Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Anastasio, Lancaster, Huddleson. Board members Absent Perica Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Council Liaison: Susan Kirkpatrick Staff Support Present: Steve Roy, City Attorney Ann Reichert Peter Barnes Minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 1992, approved as published. Appeal 2012 - 1513 Constitution Avenue by Ed and Thelma Fleener, owners - denied. ----- The variance would reduce the required setback from the Prospect Road property line from'20 feet to 1 foot for a 14' X 34' carport addition to a single-family home in the RL zone. (This appeal was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 14, 1991. However, upon appeal to the City Council, the Council remanded it back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new hearing.) ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is an existing concrete pad at this location. The owner desires to construct a carport to cover his 32 foot long motor home using the existing pad. --- Staff comments: The Board unanimously denied this request on November 14, 1991, citing a lack of hardship. The ZBA decision was appealed to City Council and acted upon at the January 7, 1992 Council meeting. The Council reviewed the record and received presentations from City staff and the appellants. After discussion, the Council voted 3-2 to remand U Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 13, 1992 the matter to the Zoning Board for a new hearing. On January 21, 1992 the Council adopted Resolution 92-16, making findings of fact regarding their decision to remand the matter back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The resolution states in part that "the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to afford the appellants a fair hearing in that: a: the Board failed to consider the requested variance in the context of previously granted variance requests for other carports; b: the Board failed to properly consider all evidence relevant to its decision, including the location of other existing improvements on the appellants' lot; and c: the Board failed to adequately consider the fact that the appellants' lot is an older corner lot, which fact may present "peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties" to the appellants within the meaning of Section 29-41 of the City Code." In conducting the new hearing, the Zoning Board should follow all normal procedures and consider all evidence and information presented. Members of the Board should attempt to specifically address the above -mentioned issues which were identified by Council in their resolution. In addition, there may be other questions or statements contained in the attached exhibits that the Board may want to address. The following exhibits are presented to the Board in order to facilitate the decision -making process and to help identify issues and questions: Exhibit A - Resolution 92-16 making findings of fact regarding the decision of the City Council to remand the Appeal back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new hearing. Exhibit B - Background information regarding previous requests for setback variances for carports during the last 5 years. Exhibit C - Amended Notice of Appeal submitted by the applicants to the City Council Exhibit D - Minutes of the November 14, 1991 ZBA meeting regarding this appeal. Exhibit E - Draft minutes of the January 7, 1992 Council meeting regarding this appeal. • 0 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 13, 1992 Exhibit F - Minutes of the May 14, 1968 ZBA meeting in which the original Prospect Road setback variance was granted for this property. Exhibit G - Three letters from adjacent property owners which were not received by staff until after the November 14th meeting. INFORMATION: To determine whether this appeal is similar to previously granted carport variances the Board should study Exhibit B and decide whether the conditions or hardships which existed on other lots are similar to those found to exist at 1513 Constitution. Resolution 92-16 contains the finding that "the Board failed to properly consider all evidence relevant to its decision, including the location of other existing improvements on the appellants' lot." The "other existing improvements" refers to the 14' x 20' boat house which is located at the west end of the existing pad, and which is approximately at the same setback location as the proposed carport would be. The boat house, because of its size, is regulated by the City's Zoning and Building Codes. This means that a building permit is required and that it must comply with the required setbacks, meaning 20 feet from the Prospect property line. However, the boat house building was constructed without a building permit, meaning that its location on the lot was never approved by the City or the ZBA. In light of this, the Board needs to determine whether or not the existing setback of the boat house is relevant to the request to build a carport at approximately the same setback. Resolution 92-16 also contains the finding that "the Board failed to adequately consider the fact that the appellants' lot is an older corner lot, which fact may present "peculiar and exceptional. practical difficulties" to the appellants...". The lot at 1513 Constitution is part of the Fairview West Fifth Filing Subdivision. This subdivision was platted in 1967, and designed in compliance with the design standards of the subdivision ordinance which was in effect at that time. Those design standards are virtually the same as those contained in the present ordinance, so while this is a somewhat older corner lot, it is not unlike corner lots found in newer subdivisions. The lot area of 1513 Constitution is approximately 8200 square feet. The average lot area of the lots in the subdivision is 8412 square feet, with the sizes ranging from 7400 sq. ft. to 9700 sq. ft. All of these lot area dimensions are about 1000 square feet larger than those of a typical newer subdivision. It is not uncommon to find that lots were bigger in • Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 13, 1992 subdivisions platted from 1965 to 1977. This is due in large part to the fact that zoning setbacks were different during that time period. For instance, the required front setback was 30 feet and the interior side setback was 7 feet, as compared to 20 feet and 5 feet respectively today. This meant that in order to accommodate the greater setbacks, the lots were slightly larger than those found in newer subdivisions. There is, however, a feature of this corner lot which the Board has addressed before on other corner lots. That being that on a corner lot, the front lot line is considered to be the shortest of the two street lines. In this case, the property line along Prospect is shorter than the one along Constitution. Therefore, the setback from the Prospect lot line is required to be 20 feet, whereas along Constitution, the setback is required to be 15 feet. If the distances were reversed, then Prospect would be the street side lot line instead of the front, meaning a 15 foot setback would be required and a substantial variance would still be needed in any case. The fact that the house faces Constitution creates a situation wherein the area between the house and Prospect actually functions as a side yard. The contractor who built the home in 1968 applied for a zoning variance to reduce the Prospect setback to 15 feet. The Zoning Board granted that variance because the house faces Constitution, thereby Prospect was really the street side lot line, which required only a 15 foot setback. This is the same type of reasoning that the current ZBA has applied to similar corner lot situations. Therefore, mention was made at the November 14, 1991 meeting that the peculiar situation created by this corner lot had already been addressed by reducing the required setback from Prospect to 15 feet at the time the house was built. Other questions or statements from Council members and/or the appellants are found in the various exhibits. A few are listed below, but there may be others that Boardmembers believe are also important. Additional background information will be helpful in considering some of these other issues. For example, a council member inquired as to the effect of the future development of Prospect Road under the Choices 95 plan. According to the Engineering Department, the street will be widened at this location, but additional right-of- way will "probably" not be required. However, the sidewalk will be relocated further north so that the back of the walk will be right on the property line. This means that the carport will be 1 foot from the sidewalk and approximately 10 feet closer to the street than it is today. An issue which has been brought up by the appellants is the inability to gain access to the carport from Prospect Road, in part Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 ,February 13, 1992 because of the location of the boat house, which has been discussed above, and also because Prospect is a busy street and it would not be safe. The Engineering Department and the Traffic Engineer have stated that access would be acceptable to the City. An inventory of lots on the north side of Prospect between Shields and Taft Hill, which is the area that includes the property in question, shows that there are 36 lots which have some sort of lot frontage on Prospect. 18 of these lots gain their sole access from Prospect Road. The appellants also stated in their Notice of Appeal that the financial hardship was not taken into consideration at all. The Board should also address this issue at the new hearing. City Attorney Steve Roy opened discussion by explaining to the Board that this hearing was to be treated as a re -hearing. All new evidence can be admitted and not limited, as well as any information from the first hearing. Board president Huddleson stated the Board will consider the staff memorandum dated February 13, 1992, together with exhibits A-G as part of the record. One letter was received from Mrs. Lucille F. Kuhnke. (The letter is attached). Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this appeal was unanimously denied on November 14, 1991. Upon denial the owners appealed to City Council. After review by the City Council, the appeal was remanded back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Barnes went over the three points stated by City Council: a) the Board failed to consider the requested variance in the context of previously granted variance requests for other carports: b) the Board failed to properly consider all evidence relevant to its decision, including the location of other existing improvements on the appellants' lot; c) the Board failed to adequately consider that fact that the appellants' lot is an older corner lot, which fact may present "peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties" to the appellants within the meaning of Section 29-41 of the City Code. r Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 13, 1992 Mr. Barnes presented slides of the property. Previously the motor home was not parked on the concrete pad, and the new slides show the motor home parked on the property. Mr. Barnes explained this is a corner lot with the legal front lot line on the side. Mr. Barnes stated one of the questions Council addressed was regard to Choices 95 and what the effect widening Prospect might present. Mr. Barnes stated that by widening Prospect the sidewalk would be moved 10 feet North and the carport would be 1 foot from the sidewalk as a result. Board president Huddleson asked Mr. Roy if the Board was to consider the boat house structure as it was built with no permit, no variance was granted, it exceeds 120 square feet and is a non- conforming illegal building. Board member Lancaster asked for clarification of the Zoning Board of Appeals role. One of the questions asked of the applicant was the Board did not consider financial hardship. Mr. Roy stated the kind of hardships to be considered by the Board are the configuration of the lot or other physical circumstances of the site which create practical difficulties in complying with Zoning laws. Board member Lancaster then stated the Board's role was to look at the uniqueness of the lot. Mr. Roy stated that was correct. Board member Lancaster also asked Mr. Roy if this Board was to consider the buildings already on the lot as contributing to the hardship. For example the boat house, or was the Board to just look at the physical topography. Mr. Roy stated if the use that is permitted in that zoning district can't be achieved, or is extremely hard to achieve because of the combination of the permitted use and the configuration of the lot, then the buildings and the lot in combination can be taken into consideration. In Mr. Roy's opinion, since the boat house is not a legally existing building, that would fall under the category of a self-imposed hardship. Board member Wilmarth asked Mr. Barnes to explain where the sidewalk would be moved. Mr. Barnes stated Choices 95 is not complete yet, but it is certain that the sidewalk is going to be moved so that the back of the sidewalk is adjacent to the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 13, 1992 Board member Cuthbertson asked Mr. Barnes if the property line will be considered a normal distance from the street. Mr. Barnes explained that it is not uncommon on local streets that the right of way line is 9' behind the flow line, and that would be comparable as far as the property line to the flow line on local streets. Janice Watson, 2207 Karakul Drive, contractor for the applicants, appeared before the Board. She stated again that the carport will be open, not enclosed. She stated that during the Council hearing, it was questioned whether a variance could be granted with stipulation of use. Mr. Roy responded that if a variance were granted for the construction of the carport to be used only for the parking of the motor home, and if the property owner seized to use the carport to park the motor home, then the carport would have to be removed. Mr. Roy had reservations about that from a legal point of view. A variance should be tied to a piece of property, not an individual property owner. Another practical concern would be who would police the variance, what period of time that the motor home was not parked there, what would constitute a violation? Mrs. Watson stated that the layout of the property would require trees to be removed if the carport was located somewhere else on the lot. Access should not be from Prospect as that is a very busy street and could be dangerous. She stated an alternative was to place a tarp on the top of the motor home. She stated that could be difficult for the couple to physically do, and that was just a temporary fix. Maintenance on the motor home would be less if the carport had a roof. Mr. Barnes gave Mrs. Watson a copy of carport variances that were granted previously. (A copy of the staff memo and all exhibits had already been given to Mrs. Fleener approximately 10 days earlier.) Mrs. Watson stated if the carport was placed anywhere else on the property, a variance would need to be requested. An issue was. brought up at the last meeting regarding off site parking of the motor home, Mrs. Watson stated that was not sensible because the Fleeners could not keep an eye on the motor home. Board member Lancaster asked if the carport cover would slope south, with no peaks and an overhang. Mrs. Watson stated there would be a slope and an overhang of 611. Thelma Fleener, 1513 Constitution appeared before the Board. She stated there is no other place to park the motor home. The building Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 13, 1992 referred to as a boat house, was originally a tool shed until an addition was placed on the shed and the motor to the boat was placed in the shed. Now it is referred to as a boat house. She stated that they planted trees on the side of the house, but because of car accidents, the trees are now gone. Board president Huddleson asked Mrs. Fleener if she had a chance to read through the paperwork Mr. Barnes gave her regarding the carport variances granted in the past. She stated she did read it, and she didn't want to be any different than anyone else. Board president Huddleson stated the City Council also asked the Zoning Board to look at the lot with regard to it being an older corner lot and if that presented any peculiar or practicable difficulties. Mrs. Fleener stated anything done to the property would add to the property value and the carport would add to the value. Mrs. Watson stated after looking over the variances granted in the past, corner lots and the narrowness of the lots were considered. The lot in question is 67' wide. She wanted to know if that was considered a small lot. Board President Huddleson stated the Fleener's lot was 8200 square feet, and the average size in the sub -division is 8400 square feet. In comparison to new sub -divisions, this lot is approximately 1000 square feet larger and it is wider than most of the lots which had received previous carport variances. Mrs. Watson stated few have been granted for what the Fleeners are asking. Mrs. Fleener stated the motor home is only gone on weekends, and usually only one weekend a month. No one was present in favor or opposition of the application. Board president Huddleson stated the Board is not talking about letting the Fleeners park a motor home, we are discussing whether to build a structure. Mr. Huddleson summarized the variances that were referred to in Exhibit B. Board president Huddleson summarized the past variances, stated there was no precedent in previous variances granted and the Zoning Board of Appeals had addressed all the issues presented to them by Council. He felt this as a self-imposed hardship. This was a standard older lot, actually larger than some, and the configuration of the lot was not unusual and not reason enough to Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 February 13, 1992 grant a variance. Board member Wilmarth stated she understood the personal desire, however she didn't see any uniqueness of the property. Board member Lancaster stated he saw this as a self-imposed hardship, and the lot was not unusual or peculiar. He saw no reason to change the Board's previous decision. Board member Gustafson stated the ZBA granted a set back in 1968. Bringing a structure that close to Prospect road would definitely have an impact. The hardship was self-imposed by building a boat house illegally. He stated there are options for off -site parking for the motor home with protection for the motor home. Board member Cuthbertson stated he was sympathetic with the problem, but the Board needs to decide this on the uniqueness of the property. He echoed the statements of other board members. Board member Anastasio stated he agreed with all the comments of the other Board members and felt this was a self-imposed hardship. Board member Lancaster stated he also had some concerns with regard to moving the sidewalk back and the resulting safety issues. The roof would come all the way to the sidewalk and the snow could fall down on the sidewalk since the roof slopes that way. Board member Lancaster moved to deny application 2012 for the hardships and reasons discussed in the meeting of February 13, 1992. The motion was seconded by Board member Cuthbertson. Yeas: Anastasio, Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Lancaster. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Board president Huddleson stated he attended a meeting for the Chairs of other Commissions and Boards on 2-13-92 and briefed the Board about the meeting. The meeting was adjourned. Chuck Hud leson Peter Barnes CH/PB:aer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution 92- 11 Making Findings Board of AppeaTs and Remanding the RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NUMBER: 21 DATE: January 21, 1992 STAFF: peter Barnes of Fact Regarding an Appeal From the Zoning Matter Back to the Board for a New Hearing. On November 14, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a setback reduction variance for a carport addition at 1513 Constitution Avenue. At its meeting on January 1, the Council heard an appeal of that decision. After reviewing the matter, the Council found that the matter should be remanded to the Board for a new hearing. BACKGROUND: At the hearing on this matter, the Council reviewed the record on appeal and received presentations from City staff and the appellants. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council voted 3-2 to remand the matter -to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new hearing. The Resolution prepared for Council's consideration directs the Board to reconsider the variance request in light of: (a) previous requests for setback variances for carports; (b) the location of other existing improvements on the lot; and (c) the fact that this is an older corner lot. The rehearing of this matter has been scheduled for the February 13 agenda of the Zoning Board of Appeals. At that time, the appellants and other parties -in - interest will be permitted to introduce any additional evidence which they consider to be relevant to the Board's determination. RESOLUTION 92- 16 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A NEW HEARING WHEREAS, on November 14, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals, after notice and hearing, denied a setback reduction variance for a carport addition at 1513 Constitution Avenue ("the requested variance"); and WHEREAS, on November 25, 1991, Ed and Thelma Fleener ("the appellants' filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the aforesaid decision of the Zoning Soar, of Appeals; and WHEREAS, on January 7, 1992, the City Council, after notice and hearing in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, considered said appeal; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and after full consideration of the record on appeal, and after hearing argument thereon, the Council made the following findings o fact: The grounds for appeal as stated in the appellants' Amended Notice of Appeal substantially conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the Code; and 2. With respect to the merits of the appeal, the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to afford the appellants a fair hearing in that: a. the Board failed to consider the requested variance in the context of previously granted variance requests for other carports; b. the Board failed to properly consider all evidence relevant to its decision, including the location of other existing improvements on the appellants' lot; and C. the Board failed to adequately consider the fact that the appellants' lot is an older corner lot, which fact may present "peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties" to the appellants within the meaning of Section 29-41 of the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of November 14, 1991, denying a setback reduction variance for a carport addition at 1513 Constitution Avenue, is hereby overturned, and the matter is remanded to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new hearing. r- w Nm Wa-1 z E+ Em H N E aN N O 0 W 4 y ! a E W W �l �l U 3 (n W Vl� HZ W E kC4Z aNyaa U)0 W W E+Ez xE00W W OxUa ZZ a [PS4 H E E 0 0 xXU4 E E U H M w o-7E0 zFCQZF39ry wq G.� W pQ7 O W IM3 W 3 EZZ> Oaooa aEE to aN� W 0.'..Z' E N O Z E i11 �O M rr�� M W w E+ 3 cA W >+ 0 pq N O >4 pi U .y7 W W OfW-0E04 cxEX LLxED aa w0.l ra zU0bi E+ y Z Z>a 11,0 w aq E r34 000wa OWpxx— OEECZEa EZ3 Z WE Www O- awca ZZ aaxEELc) 1%.7E00%o wHcnW>70 z0 H0Hpi ZEW OGKG aONM=CCEEw Pw UEMIMWZ 040HHHO Z-333'+ HaX4=7N aaw0ma = H ow sw a w z °z °z °z o 0 z u oZOC7 °a w M Z Z W z Z NO W O O ca O O 67UfLM �. G G G �. �COE • H m • Cnw Wz H �EC0 EooEaa oo O EO Ea O IWq o� 0 E. W an0 w .. �Ea - WO �Ea N u�Nxa N z z H H H H W Z E+ OC ZO R7�Wy p 3z Z> �E N 3 a0 m ma Hp -00 0 3 T a .r q A 00c1 0 0 q p E N E E E4 E SCO� 0 In 0 CDO con con co co mm m m i Oa+ c m m .fir i n H o+ Ch o AM w u a a. m iC H 1+ O CD Zw0 E H Ez�w0 wAy04 j �O W atr1 AGtA E W W Hl W D4tA OQOOX a F U�+ y a F UH HW 3.07HzEz O 3:4 zEz Ow3� GC M E Howa >=4 ZH E z wEaF p Ww 0 O la 4w4E w4EQE0 PC 007 aa' zz3o04 �4 HWE mwmw O zyMWow rz-i aaC Z EQCIQ aUEz wu) az0xz= Dwa 400 wUH uo Mlzenln O E OWUHWH- UaCtAayln < O Z D H O w 0 z--9¢wam v7E a o y E oz w > w oz oz ozon rA 63 to °i z o33 033 W oa o In >10 0 O w E E F t� �1.4 O1MU0�� 0 Z O w c - 'n; - OL O Ei _ o W rr E+ N W o mpa�0 N EO Fra Ew Ew �� Fa w we - a _ �a a C 1n W o N .4 ,n v � H q ?Aa $ g w z-+ 0 3 •-1 17 'r g 0 E a T W oW qr D oa aU coE+ pC14 4 �4Q NH 0 cn D3 a :;H N W � a w Ci c pa c E Wi c c E" E E W qO n C�7 Q C�7 C7 z m OD co m o] o\ dp (n 60 E en I I O Co 1 co 1 I yi I C A 1 H co 1 am O o � N N 1 N 1 N 1 '-1 Ak / w 5� @ 0§ �` o` 4 a; (§ ■ 0w § ra «■; I hi ` S N E-4 o ° G §°CA2 R 0)W` 04 § §GS §E§2 « g ; § @��o 19jk�� §.uol. § pa A\ �� vk� _ ' � 2 � �§ RN§ § '■� Ln Ln; ■ - w H ; § . @ ,4 r / ■ C§ Q SQ o _; S ; � ) g 14 210 g § \ 4 § � \ 3. [� : IN APPELLANT: • F # C, • NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 11/14/91 Concerning Set Back Change at 1513 Constitution Ed & Thelma Fleener 1513 Constitution Fort Collins, CO 80521 RELATIONSHIP TO ISSUE: Owner of the property in question. Spoke at the Zoning Board of Appeals 11/14/91 This matter was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 14, 1991, Agenda Item q4, Appeal #2012. The appeal alleges that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they did not consider the most safe, logical, and economical placement of the carport with respect to the property. We do not feel the financial hardship was taken into consideration at all. What was asked of the Zoning Board of Appeals was that the set back on the South side of the property; which is on Prospect Street, be allowed to change to within one (1) foot of the property line so that a steel carport, which is basically a steel roof and steel posts, could be erected. At the preset time there is already a concrete pad on this South side of the garage. There is also, a boat house which is 14' wide and 20' feet long directly West of the concrete pad with it's doors opening onto the pad. The motor home has been parked on this pad and extends East past the end of the garage 10'. The proposed car port would cover the motor home. This is an open structure so the motorists view of Prospect would not be impaired. There is a tree on the corner and a fence on the property line. The 4x4x3/16" steel posts would be inside the fence on the property line. Since the boat house is already a structure in place and takes up the same amount of width as the car port would and being an open structure this is just an extension of an existing use of this portion of the property. The car port would protect the motor home from the elements and significantly cut down on the maintenance of resealing the roof, tires, etc. There was discussion by the Board about access from Prospect. There are more than a few reasons why this wouldn't be possible. The first would be of course the boat house which already takes up the entire South lot line space. The second and possibly the most important, even if it were possible, is that Prospect is a very busy street and it would be extremely dangerous to try to pull a motor home on or off Prospect at that location. As stated at the hearing some years back before the boat house was erected a request was made for a curb cut on the Prospect side of the property. At that time we were told that it wouldn't be possible because of the traffic on Prospect. So the boat house was put where it is now. Now the comments from the Traffic and Engineering Departments seem to be favorable to this and the traffic is much worse. The boat house is a Cc: C,ty At+o.�e7 _Lkispec-b ova Zoning Board of Appeals November 13, 1991 Page 5 Kevin Callahan of Shaw Sign & Awning appeared before the Board. Originally Blockbuster wanted a sign on the north to capture south bound traffic. After being denied by staff, they applied fcr signage on the east. Scott Pierson, of Blockbuster Video appeared before the Board. He stated the company is sensitive to the intrusive affect of a sign put close to a residential neighborhood. Boardmember Cuthbertson asked the applicant to explain the hardship if this variance was not granted. Mr. Pierson stated the sign is only visible from the North and they would like to create the exposure to the Southbound traffic in order to attract the "going home" traffic. C.J. Striet, owner of this property since 1968 appeared before the Board. He stated he felt building identification is very important for any business. Because of the way the property sits, the only visibility is from the traffic traveling north on Taft Hill Road. Boardmember Gustafson wanted to condition the variance on allowing only Blockbuster to have a sign on the east wall, thereby excluding other tenants from also wanting a sign. Steve Roy, City Attorney, stated his recommendation would be the signage be tied to amount rather than tenant. Boardmember Gustafson moved to approve Appeal #2011 for the hardship stated and that the signage on the East wall be limited tc 38 square feet. Boardmember Perica seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Perica, Lancaster. _. Aoneal 2012 1 - Ed & Thelma Fleener of 1513 Constitution, denied. ----- The variance would reduce the required setback from the Prospect Road property line from 20 feet to 1 foot for a carport addition to a single-family home in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is an existing concrete pad at this location. The owner desires to construct a carport to cover his 32 foot long motor home using the existing pad. Zoning Board of Appeals November 14, 1991 Page 7 explain what the hardship was since he was having a hard time finding one. Ms. Watson stated she did not know. There just wasn't any other place to put it. Thelma Fleenor stated they have parked their motor home on the concrete pad for many years. She stated the reason they want a covered carport is every year they spend $300.00 to repair the top of the motor home. Boardmember Perica asked if the applicants have thought of a cover to put over the roof of the r.v. Mrs. Fleenor said they had thought about it, and even planted four trees to protect and shade the r.v. Two accidents killed the trees. Boardmember Anastasio stated the motor home could be put in the back yard and this was a self-imposed hardship. Mrs. Fleenor stated they had thought of putting the motor home in the back yard, but getting off Prospect was a problem. Boardmember Wilmarth stated she thought it was almost impossible to back a motor home across Prospect. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated he had consulted with the project engineer for the engineering department with respect to proposed improvements along Prospect. He also discussed this with the traffic engineer regarding the possibility, of whether the City would allow access from Prospect. The project engineer saw no problem with that, the traffic engineer felt that since it was a motor, home it would not be coming and going every day, that he also would have no problem with that. The traffic engineer would rather see a ramp than a curb cut, and the ramp would be of such a nature that it could be used only when the R.V. is being driven on or off the lot. Boardmember Lancaster stated this appeared to be a typical city lot in that there were no unique configuration or topography and felt this was a self-imposed hardship. Boardmember Gustafson stated this was a self-imposed hardship and had an impact on the public right-of-way with the building so close to Prospect. There are reasons why setbacks are required along public right-of-ways, and to encroach into that with this carport is going to have an impact on Prospect. January 7, 1992 Item 4111B. Item 1411C. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Fromme, Kirkpatrick and Maxey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmembers Reports Mayor Kirkpatrick gave the first State of the City address in which she reviewed 1991 accomplishments, proposed "The Year of the River" as the community theme for 1992, and advocated the use of state sales tax to fund K-12 education. Councilmember Azari encouraged applause for Mayor Kirkpatrick's comments. Secretary's Note: Councilmember Horak arrived at this time. Appeal of the November 14, 1991 Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to Deny a Setback Reduction Variance for a Carport Addition at The following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 14, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a variance request for the property at 1513 Constitution Avenue. The variance sought would have reduced the required building setback from the Prospect Road property line from 20 feet to 1 foot in order to allow a carport addition to a single-family home. This request, heard as Appeal #2012, was unanimously denied by a vote of seven to zero. Boardmembers cited the lack of a hardship as the reason for voting to deny the variance. Ed and Thelma Fleener, owners of the property, are appealing this decision. BACKGROUND: On October 17, 1991 a City Building Inspector issued a Stop Work Order for a carport which was being constructed at 1513 Constitution Avenue. The order was issued as a result of construction of the carport commencing without first obtaining a building permit. On October 18, 1991 Chaparell Construction Company 7 • January 7, 1992 applied for a building permit for the carport. Review of the site plan which was submitted indicated that the structure was being built only one foot from the front property line. Since the Zoning Code requires that structures be at least 20 feet from the front property line, the permit was denied. Subsequently, the contractor, representing the owners, applied for a variance to reduce the setback requirement. The property at 1513 Constitution Avenue is located in the RL (Low Density Residential) zoning district. This property is a corner lot which is located at the northwest corner of West Prospect and Constitution. The house faces Constitution, however the Code defines a "front lot line" as: "the property line dividing a lot from a street. On a corner lot only one (1) street line shall be considered as a front line, and the shorter street frontage shall be considered the front line". With respect to this lot, the legal front property line is the lot line along Prospect Road because it is shorter than the lot line along Constitution. Since the request is to reduce the required setback from Prospect, it is necessary to ask for a reduction to the 20 foot front setback requirement. (The lot line along Constitution is considered a street side lot line, requiring a setback of 15 feet). The purpose of the proposed carport is to shelter the owner's 32 foot long motor home. The petitioners stated that their hardship was the desire to use the concrete pad which already exists at this location, and expressed that it was their belief that there were no other locations for such a structure. The powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals are stated in Section 29-41 of the Code. The authority to grant variances is set forth in Section 29-41 (c), which states: "The Zoning Board of Appeals shall authorize, upon appeal in specific cases, variances from the terms of this Article where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or slope of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment of this Article or by reason of exceptional topographical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of such piece of property, including situations or conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of any regulation enacted herein would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this Article....". After due consideration and discussion, members of the Board expressed their findings that this was a typical city lot in that there were no unique K January 7, 1992 circumstances regarding the shape, size, or topography of the lot. Several Board members expressed their belief that the hardship was self-imposed. The Board voted unanimously to deny the variance request due to lack of hardship. The appellants allege that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to conduct a fair hearing, however, their notice of appeal does not state how they were denied a fair hearing as per the specific language contained in Section 2-48 of the Code. City Council is being furnished with a copy of the minutes of the ZBA meeting on this matter and all other materials presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding this variance request. (Three letters written by neighbors were received after the hearing, therefore they were not presented to the Board and are not part of the record. The parties sending the letters have been notified of their right to present their comments directly to the Council if Council decides to hear the appeal.)" Councilmember Azari withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy summarized the appeal process. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, that there are sufficient grounds to hear the appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Fromme, Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Maxey. Nays: None. (Councilmember Azari withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Code Administrator Peter Barnes made a presentation, showing the slides that were presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals at its November hearing. He described the criteria for a "hardship." Councilmember Edwards inquired who bears the burden of responsibility in demonstrating a hardship. Barnes replied the petitioner is required to state a hardship to the Board. Councilmember Fromme inquired what hardship the appellant claimed. Barnes replied the petitioner's statement of hardship was there was an existing concrete pad at the location upon which the owner wished to construct a carport to cover his 32' motorhome. Roy stated the Council is to determine whether a variance should be granted. The Code states that in order for a variance to be granted, there should be a finding of a hardship. Council is to determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the Board that there is no hardship. E7 January 7, 1992 Councilmember Horak asked what the problem was in putting a carport over an existing pad when a motorhome can be parked there continuously. Barnes stated a carport is considered a structure. The sides could be closed in at a later date. The variance goes with the property. Councilmember Horak inquired if any variances had been granted conditioned on a time period or ownership. He also asked if variances could be tied to the use. Roy stated that variances can't be made personal to ownership. The question of variances conditioned on use would need further research. Councilmember Edwards asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals is concerned about precedent. Barnes replied the Board is concerned about the issue of precedent. Councilmember Edwards asked about setbacks. Barnes stated that setbacks establish an expectation for a neighborhood. Councilmember Maxey inquired about a boathouse shown in the pictures. Barnes stated the boathouse is approximately at the same setback locatibn as the carport would be. The Code exempts storage sheds and accessory buildings that do not exceed S feet in height or 120 square feet in floor area. The proposed building exceeds 120 square feet in floor area. Councilmember Maxey asked if a non -corner lot would need a variance to erect a carport that close to the property line. Barnes replied that if the lot line along Prospect Road were an interior side lot line, the Code would require a 5-foot setback from the property line. Ed Fleener, 1513 Constitution, property owner, gave the history of the property and problems associated with the corner location. Janice Watson, Chaparell Construction, contractor, spoke of the annual maintenance costs for the motorhome and the proposed design of the carport. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to uphold the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Councilmember Fromme gave concerns about the lack of input from the neighbors and the effect of the future development of Prospect Road. Councilmember Edwards stated his belief that the Zoning Board of Appeals did a thorough job and questioned the sufficiency of the stated hardship. 10 January 7, 1992 Councilmember Fromme inquired if a carport could be allowed in another location on the lot if the Zoning Board of Appeals decision is upheld. She supported the Zoning Board of Appeals decision with the condition that individuals receive as much assistance as developers. Barnes replied that it could be placed in another location. He had discussed other options with the contractor. Councilmember Horak spoke against the motion, stating that the addition of a carport would not change the visual effect. Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in support of the motion. Councilmember Edwards clarified that the issue is the creation of the structure, not the parking of the motorhome. Councilmember Maxey spoke against the motion, stating that variances must accommodate the differences in design of older subdivisions. Councilmember Fromme clarified that the issue could be sent back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards and Kirkpatrick. Nays: Councilmembers Fromme, Horak, and Maxey. (Councilmember Azari withdrawn) THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Fromme, to remand the decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Councilmember Fromme asked if the Code definition of the frontage of the property could be considered when the matter is returned to the Board. Roy replied that would take a legislative change and could not be done in the context of this appeal. Councilmember Fromme clarified there would be an entire new hearing before the Board. The criteria the Board will use in making a decision will be the same, but the evidence could be different. Barnes stated that in 1968 the Board recognized that Prospect was the side lot line of the property and issued a variance to reduce the setback to 15 feet. That lot line is still the legal front lot line by definition. Councilmember Maxey cited previous Zoning Board of Appeals decisions on setback variances for carports, the Board's failure to consider the location of other 11 E January 7, 1992 existing structures on the lot, and the fact that this is an older corner lot as reasons to remand the matter back to the Board. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to remand the decision back to the Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Fromme, Horak, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards and Kirkpatrick. (Councilmember Azari withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 92-10 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the United States Federal Aviation Administration for The followingN s staff's memorandum on this item: m The Federal Aviation ministration has obliga d $45,000 of federal funds to accomplish Airport Impr ement Program Projec No. 3-08-0023-06, Airport Master Plan Update for the For ollins-Loveland A' port. The grant offer covers 90% of the total Project cost. he l0Y< local s are for this project will be S5,000. The City of Fort Collins shar wi11 be $2, 0 and the City of Loveland share will be the same. These funds were revious V appropriated in the 1992 Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The cities of Fort CoItFort L e nd have received a grant offer from the Federal Aviation Adminthe mount $ 45,000 for a Master Plan Update. The Master Plan providis and commendations for the expansion of the Airport. The Master1 guide t e Federal Aviation Administration's financial participatiort Collins 0veland Airport for the ensuing five years." Councilmember Maxey wom discussion nd vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of Fred Anderton, mans r of the Fort Collins -Loveland irport, made a presentation on this item and a following item, Resolution 92-1 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Int rgovernmental Agreement with the Unit d States Federal Aviation Administration or Partial Funding of a Project to Gro ve and Mark Runway 15133 at the Fort C ]ins -Loveland Airport. Councilmem r Horak clarified that the Master Plan would ill be done if there were not federal grant. He asked who would do the plan. Andertdn replied that Isbell and Associates would do the plan. 12 a • —?(�n,�a:+ F • May 1'4. 1=^� ert reduction in the required side yard in a R-L zone from i5fee- 12 feet on a narrow corner lot. The ✓sriation is regQeste_'. t._ Il re son that the appel ant dos ire a t0 COn 7ert an exis tong ;a rcn !J feet t0 an additional room in the we3t Side of the hole. _l-n of availahis lot space will not permit an ae3t'ret_ca�_1y sat -.r_ condition.. BY. Pik, .was yresen.t and stated that this woo a 1-27 ooraa addition which was enclosed at the present time but neeO! _, be ,widened to the west in order to use same as a roam. Toone �no objections flied from adjacent property owners. Sr. Pikn -at=i I, - ,. that there was some 90 feet between D'. Beebe the prw;ewt:.:wn?y the scith 3n"i his property, and that with the Set back fr_m Street and the house on the lot, the addition would not ::'c;tr� - .. view of Oncoming traffic. After soma discussion, motion ..,. by Braden, seconded by Hafer, that this v148V Dn, as regiaitn4. _ granted for tie reason that it would not be detrimental to an -_ the adjoining )rope:^ties. The Chai-Tinn put the m.>tion wh!cA wg unanimously adopted. #325 An appeal for modification of the Zoning Ordinance f._.. I 'd ilian Bantran dba Bartran Hones, Inc., at 1513 Constituticn A70z ._. !being lot 27, ex:ept the North 5 feet of Block I. Fairview 'r1.3t I !Fiftn Filing, was presented. The modification desired is a !in required front yard (actually side yard) along ?ruspeet street In a R-L zone. This is a corner lot. Due to the fact that tAp '_ - Lli_ m •I ,trap g3tion ditch :meanders along the west side of the lot and cuts to -^e least, thereby narrowing the Prospect Street side of that lot to -.ch a point that under the ordinance this side of the- mm become; t_= front -- ''-- This house, as stated before, faces on Con:._-.- !tion and it is, by definition only, that only 30 feet is required J Ifor front (actl3lly side yard). Aften dis3issi3n Of the, mute. I t,.. .rriglla confor:aati•of the lot an'i platting Wt in conjuno- i ,i.n w`-th the other lots in this snhdiviSion and as `here 'na3 no, - men any objections filed against the ap ()nova'_ Of the vsrian.a e m, ion tags male by Hafer, seconded by Fischer, the` the variation 'ne granted a3 regtze3ted for the rea33n that 1t 'wcul i t.ot be dr=trimen ta) i in any blay to the adjoining 7)rope•ties. The Chalrttt2r] `)llt tC". m.)ti which was unani'n.,,,,isly 9dopted. #326 An appeal for (andificat:.on of Lhe ZOn ing O: dinan,;e by La McCrery for Dr. Nelson Bachus of J. Bc z, E1iza'oet:z Street. 'alo3e property is described by metes an'! hounds, '.aa3 presented. The mJdl- ficatton desired is periaission to locate a hiiliing 10feet from a zonf4'property line in a B-L zone, Section 11-4. Dr. 3achus is plan- ning to erect a Clinic on this property and is atte;r�ting to farnisil ,.c the maximum offstreet parking throug`1 more efficient utilizaticr. , the land area. This m,�dification would be to :love the proposed i"ding to w=tlin li fee` ()f the was, n )per y line ; 71Ci.7 15 the east boundary of a R-L zone. The zone in which the ? c 10�)1131ng i3 .,c Se erectei is ,B-L. After confide^able di5cus5i:n Of Lhe ropo3al 9n:i request, motion ?+fa-S made by F1Se)1.1er, seconded oy Braden, that aariation be granted as it does not appea,- that it ?aoald '.)e detrimental :o any of the adjoining properties, at least at tills time. The 'hair(asn rut the rn,)ti.on which was unanimlusly adopted. �I 4327 An appeal for modification of the Zoning Ordinance by 3dwin M. Carlson of 1212 W. Oak Street, being moo` 13, Bloc); 2, Scc`.t- q iherwo.)d Si)bdivision, was present^a. The modification desired is i reducticn in required side yard in an R-L zone to 3'�". The owner .wires to sold a `_'ire place to this house which redlines the side yard i 0 3'4" for the reason that the existing house was built as a � 9' i_ yard. This makas it i_npossible to comply :with the ordinance • A-O�- /i, /,rs/ all i�i ✓/WJV �/ t/ G--*Ci ez- C>aic�iah =t� TU' L of 9 'cosoy°^ow "e Cc'o -1 ber os o,�o co 0 Services Building Permits & Inspections Division 5, 1991 ooy LEGAL NOTICE The pure. a of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of Code section(s) 29-133(3) has been requested by Ed & Thelma Fleener for the following described property, 1513 Constitution. The variance would reduce the required setback from the Prospect Road property line from 20 feet to 1 foot for a carport addition to a single-family home in the RL zone. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 2012. As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of the variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 14, 1991, 300 west Laporte Avenue. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need special assistance to participate, please call 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator at 221)-6760. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 281 N. College Avenue • P.O. Box 380 v �(/Norm A. Meir 1509 Constitution Fort — Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fort�illins, C/O 23-0580 (303) 221-676u November 14. 1991 Peter Barnes Loning Administrator Deveiooment Services Bl,ilciing Permits & inspections Division C:7:y of Fort =ol:ins pE�Dx58 Ft. Collins. CO 80522-0580 Dea.- Mr. Sar-es. I am writing this letter to express my views on the variance appir atior, (Appeal No. 2012) requested by Ed and Thelma Fleener for their property at 1513 Constitution Ave. My wife and I own property just two units north and across the street. We believe the addition to the Fletcher's property is unsightly and likely to diminish property values in our neighborhood. We are also upset that the Fleeners have presented ,.is with a done deal by proceeding with construction before obtaining the variance. The basic structure is already erected, requiring only siding for completion. The purpose of the Fleener's addition is to house a large mobile home. While we have ne objection to the mobile home per se, it is mobile and not a permanent structure that obstructs the view and is a distinct departure from the architectural style and values of the Constitution Ave. community. In sum. we stroncly object to the olanned structure and urge your depar�ment to deny the variance as requested. Thaw< you for your consideration. S c�rely. `e`pn//eJn F . Mumme 1504 Constitution Ave. (231-3166)