Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/14/1991e % 0 M ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 14, 1991 Regular Meeting - 8:30AM Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 14, 1991 at 8:30AM in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Anastasio, Wilmarth, Huddleson, Gustafson, and Lancaster. Boardmembers absent: Garber Staff Present: Barnes and Reichert Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 14, 1991 Approved as published. The minutes of the February 14, 1991 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Wilmarth abstained. Appeal #1978. Section 29-133 (2) by John Giuliano, 1708 E Lincoln Suite 3 - approved ----- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 56.6 feet for a new single family dwelling in the rp zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner recently bought the lot and has a contract to build the specific house depicted on the site plan. The lot was platted so that it get narrower towards the back of the property. In order to comply with the lot width requirement, the house would have to be moved 8 feet forward thus a front yard variance will be required. The house will comply with all required setbacks. It would be difficult to build any house on this lot without a variance because the depth of the house could be no more than 25 feet in order to comply with the lot width requirement. Staff comments: None One APO notices was returned and no letters received. Zoning Board of Appeals March 14, 1991 Page 2 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained the lot was platted so that a house built on this lot would have to be one of a kind. The lot width for the zoning code is measured at the narrowest point of the lot parallel to the front property line on which the building sits. In most residential zones the code requires a 60 foot lot width. In order to meet code requirements the house would have to be moved forward approximately 10 feet. Moving it forward 10 feet would then make it only 10 feet from front property line and 20 feet is the required front yard setback. The property was platted a number of years ago by Reid Rosenthrall and bought by the Everitt Companies. Everitt has been the main builders in this subdivision. Mr. Giuliano purchased a number of lots from the Everitt Companies. Mr. Giuliano has reconfigured the lot lines on this lot and the adjacent lot so that one lot meets code requirements and he is only asking for a variance on the one lot. Peter Barnes stated.that the side setbacks met regulations. Mr. Giuliano, owner of the property, spoke in favor of the variance stating that he has a contract to build on this lot. None of the houses he builds would fit on this lot without a variance. No others attended the meeting to speak either in favor of or against the appeal. Boardmember Wilmarth stated that she saw no solvable solution and this was not a self imposed hardship. Boardmember Lancaster moved that Appeal #1978 be approved for the hardship of the platting of the lot. Boardmember Anastasio seconded the motion.. Yeas: Anastasio, Wilmarth, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster. The appeal passed. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes read a memo to the Board from the Mayor with regard to the 1992 Budget Process and asked for input. There was none at this time. Meeting was adjourned. Next meeting - April 11, 1991 - City Council Chambers. Respectfull Submitted, Chuck Huddleson, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 0 Appeal #1976 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting February 14, 1991 --- 2918 Greentree Cr. --- Petitioner: Walt Wilkins --- Zone: RL --- Section: 29-133 (4) --- The variance would reduce the rear setback requirement from 15 feet to 12 feet for a detached carport in the RL zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The carport is intended to shelter a boar. The structure can't be moved forward because it would be closer to the house than the building code allows. The petitioner requested a variance to reduce the setback to 6 feet at the January, 1991, Zoning Board meeting, but that request was denied. The structure is built in 8 foot sections, so the petitioner is now requesting a variance which would require the removal of only one 8 foot sections. One corner of the rear of the carport will be 12 feet from the lot line, the other corner will be 14 feet. --- Staff comments: At the January meeting some Board members expressed concerns that the hardship was self-imposed and that the carport did not have to be 32 feet long in order to shelter a boat. The petitioner has now modified his request in light of these objections and is proposing that the carport be only 24 feet long. Removal of another 8 foot section would result in only a 16 foot carport. l � • Appeal #1977 --- 2050 Churchill Court --- Petitioner: Rick Armitstead for Tri-Trend Homes. --- Zone: RLP --- Section: 29-148, 29-133 (3) --- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback for a new single-family dwelling in the RLP zone from 20 feet to 16.9 feet. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: This lot is at the end of a cul-de-sac which abuts Taft Hill Road, a major arterial street. In order to add additional noise buffer to the living area of the home, the contractor believes that it is most desirable to build the garage on the west side of the house, the same as had been done on the other lots which abut Taft Hill. This lot is very shallow because of the arc of the cul- de-sac, so if the house were moved back to comply with the front yard requirement then a rear yard variance would be needed. All of- the housed in this development ar factory built and all of the models have the same building footprint, so putting a different model on this lot would still create the same problem. The house could be built without a variance, but then the living area portion of the home would be on the west side of the lot and only 8 feet from the property line along Taft Hill road. --- Staff comments: On the one hand, this could be viewed as a self-imposed hardship since there is a way to build the home without a variance. On the other hand, there are many unique factors involved which could be considered a legitimate hardship, such as: the shallowness of the lot due to the arc of the cul-de-sac; its close proximity to Taft Hill and the accompanying noise and visual problems; these are all factory built homes with the same building footprint, so putting another model home on the lot is not a solution; other homes along Taft Hill in this subdivision were able to be built with the garage on the side adjacent to Taft; and even with a front setback reduction, the house, being at the end of the street, will not appear to be any closer to the street than all the other houses on the block.