Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/11/1991ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July lit 1991 Regular Meeting - 8:30 AM The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 11, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by: Gustafson, Lancaster, Anastasio, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson, Garber. Staff Present: Dan Coldiron, Ann Reichert Minutes of the June meeting were approved. Appeal 1992 - 744 Martinez Street by Belvid and Rosie Yardley, owners - approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet in order to allow a new single-family residence in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot was originally platted with only 50 feet of lot width. The existing home was in an extremely poor state of repair. Without a variance nothing can be built. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Inspector, Dan Coldiron explained the is a common request in the older part of town. The lot did have a house on it that was in poor state of repair. The owners want to rebuild. Rosie Yardley, 714 Martinez Street, owner, appeared before the Board and agreed with Zoning Inspector Dan Coldiron. Gloria Coleson, 8820 Northeast Frontage Road, Wellington, appeared before the Board as a friend of the applicant, in favor of this appeal. Boardmember Lancaster moved to approve the appeal for the hardship stated. Boardmember Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Lancaster, Anastasio, Huddleson, Wilmarth. Cutherbertson, Garber. The appeal passed. Appeal 1993 -316 East Magnolia by Greg Eaton, owner - approved. ----- The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building instead of the dwelling. Specifically, the owner wishes to have a small woodworking shop in the detached garage at the rear of the property, instead of in the house. n 0 . Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 July 11, 1991 Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is no attached garage, and there is no suitable room in the home for this type of business. The owner's hobby is woodworking and this is what occurs in the building now. He would like to be able to do work for others when requested. Zoning Inspector Dan Coldiron stated this was a common request in the older part of town where the garage is not usually attached. Applicant Greg Eaton, 316 E. Magnolia, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated he worked full time and does custom furniture for friends. Boardmember Lancaster asked if the applicant needed to build any addition to the existing building. The applicant stated he bought the property and a woodworking shop was already established in the garage. He was made aware of the need for a variance when he applied for a sales tax license. Board members asked the applicant about the'hours, the sound and the equipment used in the shop. Zoning Inspector, Dan Coldiron stated that all the other home occupation restrictions still apply and this Board is only addressing this specific section of the variance. Chairperson Huddleson stated just because the garage in unattached it is an unfair disadvantage. Boardmember Wilmarth moved to approve the appeal for the hardship stated. Boardmember Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Lancaster, Anatasio, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson, Garber. The moved passed. Appeal 1994 - 2700 Worthington by owner, Daryl and Karla Smith, appeal passed. The variance would allow a fence taller than 4 feet in height to be located closer than 20 feet from the front lot line. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing fence on the north side of the lot to be moved 20 feet north, to the lot line along Winchester Drive. The property is in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a corner lot where the house faces the legal side yard. The owner desires to move the existing fence in order to enlarge the back yard. The fence will actually be along the side yard, not the front yard of the house. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Inspector Dan Coldiron explained the lot line and the way the house is placed on the lot. The owners want to close their rear yard, which legally is their side yard. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 July 11, 1991 Daryl Smith, owner of 2700 Worthington appeared before the Board. He stated the legal front yard is really the side yard and they want to enlarge their back yard. Boardmember Lancaster stated this is a difficult situation that the side is the front, etc. Boardmember Lancaster moved to approve Appeal 1994 for the hardship stated. Boardmember Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Lancaster, Anatasio, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson, Garber. Motion passed. Appeal 1995 - 1129 West Oak Street, Louis and Carol Scharf, owners - approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the street side (west side) from 15 feet to 6 feet in order to allow an addition to a home in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship" The house has an existing setback of 6 feet to the property line. The location of the addition is such that it is the only logical place to put it. The addition will line up with the existing structure. Because of an extra wide right-of-way next to the home, there will be 24 feet of actual distance between the addition and street. ----- Staff Comments: None Zoning inspector Dan Coldiron stated this was an older part of town. He explained the setbacks and public right-of-way. Don Richmond. architect for the Scharfs appeared before the Board. He explained the sunroom is a simple addition, 15 X 18 and is directly in line with the existing home. Boardmember Anatasio moved that the appeal be granted for the hardship stated. Boardmember Cuthbertson seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Lancaster, Anatasio, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. Appeal 1996 - 5238 Fox Hills Drive, John Skeen of Skeen Homes - appeal granted, not for hardship stated. ----- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 17 feet for a portion of the home. only 28 feet of the home will be in the setback. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 July 11, 1991 ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The home needs to be situated on the lot as far forward as possible in order for the drainage to flow properly on the site. The lot is an unusual shape with varying elevations which has made it difficult to place the home on the lot. During excavation, trying to keep the home as far forward as possible, the foundation was poured too closely to the front lot line. Staff comments: None Zoning Inspector Dan Coldiron pointed out the flow lines and the property lines. Boardmember Wilmarth asked if the contractor poured the foundation and then found out it did not, meet proper setbacks. Dan Coldiron stated this error was found until after the foundation was poured. Boardmember Lancaster questioned whether this was in fact a hardship because of the drainage problem, or was it a self imposed hardship. Jim Martel, attorney for John Skeen appeared before the Board. He stated that the lot does slope and the lot is an odd shape. He stated the plans were submitted and the setbacks were set by the sidewalks, and the sidewalks are not the lot line. The City inspected the footings and setbacks and approved both. The City also inspected and passed the foundation. After both of those inspections, the City revoked all prior approvals and said the foundation was too close to the lot line. He stated the a variance can be granted on exceptional or extraordinary situations, and this was one of those situations. Boardmember Lancaster stated this variance was appealed because of a mistake made with the pouring of the foundation not because of drainage. John Skeen, owner appeared before the Board. He stated the further back the house sets, the closer it gets to the lot line. The house has a in -load garage and needs room for the driveway. There is a seven (7) foot drop on the lot and the drainage has to be designed to drain around the house. Scott Harris of 5232 Fox Hills Drive. He was in favor of the variance and is a neighbor of the house in question. • • Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 July 11, 1991 Boardmember Anastasio stated he felt it the contractor to know what the setbacks stated he felt this was an unfortunate problem granting the 3 foot variance. was the responsibility of are. Boardmember Garber situation and he saw no Boardmember Gustafson said the drainage was secondary. He agreed there was a hardship because there were mistakes by two professionals. Boardmember Lancaster stated the lot line was the problem, not the drainage. Boardmember Lancaster moved that the appeal be granted not for the hardship stated, but because of the extenuating circumstances of the placement of the existing foundation and the building inspections failure to catch the error of the setbacks. Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Lancaster, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson, Garber. Nays: Anatasio Chuck Huddleson, Chairperson Dan Coldiron, Zoning Inspector