Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/08/1990I h 9nc The regular November 8, Fort Collin Huddleson a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 8, 1990 Regular Meeting Minutes meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, 1990, at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of s City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Garber, nd Wilmarth. Boardmembers absent: Lancaster and Thede Staff present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 11, 1990. Approved as Published The minutes of the October 11, 1990, regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1969. Section 29-93 (a) (1), by Bill Vigor for Mountain Range Baptist Church 3602 Richmond Drive Approved as amended. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 100,000 square feet to 15,996 square feet for an existing single-family home in the RE zone. The remaining easterly 111,724 square feet would remain with the approved church. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The church has an approved plan for a new facility at this location and would like to start construction in the spring of 1991. There is an existing house on the same lot where the church would be built. The church feels that they would be less encumbered if they could sell the home and not be a landlord. They feel that it is not appropriate for them to be involved in a revenue producing endeavor. The cleanest thing would be to sell the house and associated yard, similar to what occurred on the property directly to the south a number of years ago. The proposed separate lot for the house is already fenced and is totally separate from the church lot. This variance would result in no physical change to the property with respect to the house, the new church, or the neighborhood. It would simply result in creating a new property line delineating the house from the church. Staff comments: On October 8, 1987 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for this property to reduce the then required lot area from 200,000 square feet to 127,720 square feet. The code at that time required 100,000 square feet of lot area for each principal use on the lot. In this case, that meant that 200,000 square feet of lot area was necessary in order to be able to build a church on the same lot where the house was. The other option wouP@i=stave been to demolish the house. About 18 months after the vai-I tce"was granted, the Code was amended by changing the lot area req�Aeement in the RE zone to require "(1) the equivalent of four times the total floor area of the building but not less than 100,000 square feet or (2) the legal size of the lot as it existed at the time of annexation into the city." This code change meant that the previously granted variance was no longer necessary because the lot was, and still is, the same size as it was when it was annexed. However, splitting the lot as proposed at this time does require a variance because the new lot would have less than 100,000 square feet." No letters were received, and no adjacent property notices were returned. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes addressed the Board to give some background on this site located in the Skyline Acres Subdivision at the corner of Richmond Drive and Horsetooth Roads. When this subdivision was annexed into the city in 1986, it was zoned RE. Being the most restrictive in the city, it allows only single family homes and churches with no home occupations or the possibility of PUDs (Planned Unit Developments). However, the larger sized lots do allow for the maintenance of farm animals and livestock. At the time of annexation the RE zone required 9,000 square feet of lot area for each principal use, but shortly after that, the code was changed to require 100,000 square feet per principal use. Therefore, because the house was in existence when the church wanted to build on the back part of this lot, a variance was needed to allow two principal uses bn the 127,720 square foot lot or demolish the house, because in order to comply with the code, 200,000 square feet of lot area would have been required. When the church was granted a variance in 1987, their request to be permitted to retain the house was for the purpose of using it for church related functions such as a mission's house. Mr. Barnes noted that when this variance was granted the Board approved the variance, for the property with the house on it, to be used as a primary use. However, no conditions or restrictions were placed in regard to keeping the use in line with church functions. K Between 1987, when the variance was granted to allow a reduction in lot size to allow the two uses, and now, the RE zone has again been changed with respect to lot area requirements because city staff thought the way it was worded was perhaps too restrictive. So, in this case, the previously granted variance became null and void because the lot meets the requirementsQf the current ordinance. At this time the petitioner is before the Board to request a variance to split the properinto two lots in order to sell the house. One variance is needeidito split the lot with the house because this new lot would have less than 100,000 square feet. The remaining lot area is sufficient for the approved church site. Mr. Barnes went on to explain that this house sets back from Richmond Drive the same distance as others in the neighborhood and has several general aesthetic features as the surrounding properties. He added that, prior to annexation, the adjacent property to the south sold off the back portion of the lot to this property, and a similar transaction took place on another lot across the street from this property as well. If the variance is approved, the lot area would be reduced to 15,996 square feet. Bill Vigor, contractor and church representative; and Ed Niswinder, pastor of Mountain Range Baptist Church; spoke in favor of the variance'. They explained to the Board how the idea of keeping the house for church related programs quickly turned sour when missionaries came and went, and it was difficult to keep the house occupied and maintained. After scrapping the missionary program, the property was than used strictly as a rental property. The petitioners strongly believe in maintaining the favorable relations that the church has developed with the residents in this subdivision. They have contacted the neighbors and assured the Board that the neighbors approve of plans to sell this house (the only rental house in the subdivision) so as to maintain the quality of their neighborhood. It is the intent of the church to begin building in the spring of 1991. All street improvements, landscape and parking requirements will be met. No one appeared to contest the variance. After reviewing the submitted plans, Boardmember Garber questioned the petitioners as to whether or not they were asking for a reduction in the size of the lot some 200 additional feet smaller than any of the other lots in the subdivision. Pastor Niswinder responded by telling the Board of Phase II plans for future expansion of the church that would necessitate this area for parking requirements, as well as, accommodating the neighbor to the south's request for access to his property from the north. The Boardmember's voiced their reluctance to grant the variance. They felt that although the variance made good sense, the criteria needed to justify a legitimate hardship: topography, configuration of the lot, or a hardship created by others, doesn't exist. City Attorney, Paul Eckman, interjected that the code does include one other clause which says "other extraordinary or exceptional situations resulting in 7 0 • particular and peculiar and exceptional and practical difficulties to/or exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner may also be considered. Boardmember Garber still felt that approving something that would affect the character of the entire neighborhood was overstepping the Board's authority by changing the intent of the RE zone. He added, however, that if the lot size ware.to match the other adjacent properties he could justify fairness under the circumstances. ,le pa_rc After conferring with Habt6r Niswender, Mr. Vigor told the Board that they had no problem in adding square feet back into the house property so that this property would be identical in size to the adjacent property to the south. The Boardmembers questioned the ability to modify the variance without renotifying the adjacent property owners. Mr. Barnes noted that similar action was taken in the previous months meeting, and it was determined at that time that if the variance would be of lesser impact, then it would be acceptable to modify the request without additional notification. Both the Board and the petitioners agreed to modify the variance request to split the lot thereby allowing 24,800 square feet for the house, and the remaining 102,920 square feet for the approved church site. Boardmember Garber made a motion to approve the modified variance to split 24,800 square feet of the westernmost portion of the property for the cumulative hardships addressed. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Garber, Huddleson and Wilmarth. Nays: None. Appeal #1970. Section 29-133 (2) by Mr. and Mrs. Renwicke, 1317 Laporte Avenue. - Approved. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for an existing one -family dwelling in the RL zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The current lot size is 100 feet wide by 160 feet deep, with the property consisting of lots 9 and 10 of this subdivision. The present owner combined the two lots into one lot many years ago. Therefore, the property is presently in compliance. The petitioner's desire is to just buy the original lot 10. In its original form it was only 50 feet wide. The house would be in keeping with the neighborhood because all the rest of the lots are built on and have houses on 50 foot wide lots. This house, when built, was centered on lot 10, and this variance would simply reconfigure the property back to its original condition. Staff comments: None." No notices were returned, but a statement written by Dyce Gayton was received. n Because appeals #1970 & #1971 coincide with one another, Mr. Barnes introduced both variance requests together. These two properties are adjacent to each other and are located in the Van Slyke-Setzler subdivision, which was approved in 1907. All lots in this subdivision are platted with 50 foot widths. The property in question was originally platted as two separate lots, however, the original owner of the property combined the two lots, ,lot 10 which the house sits on, and lot 9, an identical 50 foot widesp$reel of land that was used by the owner as a garden area. Legal lya t4arbl J)roperty is now one lot measuring 100 feet wide 160 feet deep. are Two potential buyers exist for the purchase of this lot. One wants to purchase the house, but not the adjacent lot; the other desires to purchase the vacant land to build a new single family home that will meet all of the current required setbacks. The variances would (#1970) reduce the required 60 foot lot width to 50 feet for an existing one - family dwelling, and (#1971) reduce the required 60 foot lot width to 50 feet to allow the construction of a new single-family home. The proposal before the Board is to split the two lots back to its original legal configuration. Mr. Wilke Renwicke, the petitioner for appeal #1970 told the Board that he desires to purchase the existing house on lot 10 located at 1317 Laporte Avenue. He is requesting that the lot size be reduced to eliminate the garden area from the house property because he is not a gardener and simply doesn't want it. He feels that because a multitude of 50 foot x 160 foot lots exist in this mature and established neighborhood, to approve the variance would be in keeping with the character of the area. Mr. Renwicke went on to make the Board aware of the precedent set by the infill project that exists at 1416 Mountain Avenue, where a house was designed for and built on a lot very similar to this one. Dennis Sovick, the petitioner for Appeal #1971, addressed the Board. Mr. Sovick noted that the request to allow a new single-family residence on this existing 50 foot lot at 1313 Laporte Avenue is identical to the project on Mountain Avenue; the lot size is the same, as are the setbacks. He feels that the request is not for anything above and beyond what already exists in the neighborhood. From a design standpoint, as his experience in this field has shown, an adequate residence can be designed to appeal both to the current desires of the owner as well as retain the character of the neighborhood. The Boardmembers questioned a clear and defined hardship. They expressed concern over the practicality of building on a 50 foot wide lot, as well as dealing with a self-imposed hardship created by the original owner. Mr. Sovick readdressed the Board. He brought up the point that, from information supplied by the zoning department, he was under the impression that it would still be possible to build a house onto the existing lot without a variance by a simple reconfiguration of the lot 5 lines. He did state, however, that the particular configuration proposed would allow the two houses to be setback the same distance from the street, and both fronting Laporte Avenue would be the most condusive arrangement for the neighborhood. The Boardmembers requested clarification of the code from Mr. Barnes. Mr. Barnes explained that a house could still be built on the vacant portion of land one of two ways without a;ng variance: (1) there is nothing in the code that says you can't have more than one building on a lot as long as you have enough lot area. The code would require in this case 6,000 square feet of lot area for each house. So, if you wanted to have two houses on the lot you would need a total of 12,000 square feet. This property has approx. 16,000. They could build another house on the lot on the left with out a variance. Another way they could do this is (2) to reconfigured the lot or jog the lot line. When the code refers to 60 foot of lot width, it doesn't mean that the lot requires 60 feet of street frontage; the lot width requirement applies only to the narrowest portion of the lot on which the house sets. So, by creating a new lot line or jogging the originally platted lot line you would retain 60 feet of lot width for the existing house and narrow the lot line to 40 feet towards the back of the lot to accommodate the 60 feet of lot width required for the house at the back of the lot. No one else appeared to speak in support of the variances, however, the following statement was received: "I feel that zoning variances should be used to correct existing inequalities and hardships. In this particular case, there is no inequality as the situation stands today. In fact, the current condition of the property has remained the same for nearly 100 years. The "exceptional undue hardship" which the zoning variance is supposed to address, is in this situation, self-imposed by the proposed owners. I am .wary that this may become a precedent setting action that will allow for further detrimental subdivision of an established neighborhood. In short, zoning variances should be used to correct deficiencies; this is a case where a variance is being used to gain an advantage. I would like to thank the Board for their time in considering my comments. Sincerely, Dyce Gayton 138 N. Lyons" In reference to the BoardmemberIs struggle with hardship, City Attorney, Paul Eckman stated that although no clear hardship exists, it may be a helpful to take into consideration just exactly what it is that makes a hardship and what doesn't make a hardship. Economics, cost, or extra expense is usually not considered a hardship until it gets to the point of being confiscatory. Other than that the Board may consider the question whether the strict application of the law would be arbitrary and would create some ridiculous result, and if that's true than it's a hardship or a peculiar difficulty. The boardmembers agreed that it would be mosVrb4iWficia1 to all to delineate the property into two separate lots, eveW4 though the original owner combined them for what was probably a legitimate reason at the time. The fact that the lots can be used by altering the legal descriptions results in a mute issue, therefore, the most practical use would be to keep the character and history of the lots intact for the use that is requested. Because of the overall picture, the Boardmembers felt to deny the variance would possibly impose an impractical hardship for the neighborhood. A motion to approve Appeal #1970, the hardship being the narrowness of the lots, and to guard against producing a peculiar circumstance as a result of the alteration of the lots was made by Boardmember Garber. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. The variance was unanimously approved. Yeas: Garber, Huddleson and Wilmarth. Nays: None. Appeal #1971. Section: 29-133 (2) by Dennis Sovick, 1313 Laporte Avenue - Approved with condition. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet in order to allow the construction of a new single-family home in the RL zone. The variance would be for the original lot 9 of this subdivision, which is currently the vacant land between 1309 and 1317 Laporte. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The current lot size is 100 feet by 160 feet, with the property consisting of lots 9 and 10 of this subdivision. The present owner combined the two lots into one lot many years ago. Therefore the property is presently in compliance. The petitioner desires to just buy the original lot 9, and in its original form it was only 50 feet wide. The house would be in keeping with the neighborhood because all the rest of the lots are built on and have houses on 50 foot wide lots. The variance would simply reconfigure the property back to its original condition. --- Staff comments: None." See Appeal #1970 for discussion applicable to this appeal. The motion made by Boardmember Garber to approve this variance was requested by the petitioner to be modified by extending the six month restriction for obtaining a building permit. Mr. Sovick explained to the Board that he presently doesn't have any definite plans for this lot, and also asked that the Board take into consideration the weather YI factor which could easily delay building within the next six months. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, clarified that a variance is valid for only six months when a building permit is required, and consequently, on many occasions in the past an applicant has requested an extension of this sort during the meeting. A formal adjacent property notification is not necessary. After brief deliberation Boardmember Garber modified, and Boardmember Wilmarth seconded, the motion to approve Appeal #1971 for.the hardship being the narrowness of the lot and to include the condition that the variance would be valid up to a period of 12 months. Yeas: Garber, Huddleson and Wilmarth. Nays: None. Appeal #1972. Section: 29-133 (4) by Stanley and Sandra Saugase, 808 Martinez Street - Approved. "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 2 1/2 feet for a detached two -car garage in the RL zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is presently no garage on the property. The house is setback 50 feet from the front property line, which is an extremely deep setback. This leaves a shallow back yard in which to build anything without a variance. A tree exists in the front yard which eliminates the front yard as being an alternative location for the garage. Staff comments: None No letters were received, and one notice was returned. Mr. Barnes stated that in the RL zone a 20 foot front setback is required. In this instance the house sets 50 feet back from the street which is unique as far as setbacks go. And the rear yard is approximately 26-30 feet which is much shallower than the majority of houses in the RL zone. The petitioner, Stanley. Saugause, desires to build the garage to the rear of his property and has plans for a living space addition to the front, of his home sometime in the future. He told the Board that a garage in the front was not an acceptable location. Other lots in this subdivision, that have garages, are built to the rear of the lots. He feels this configuration would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He noted that the street in front of his home is narrower than most and feels that the garage in the front would be an obstruction to passing traffic. 8 1] The Boardmembers feel that the hardship is clearly obvious, that being the shallowness of the back yard, and the unusually deep front yard setbacks. A motion by Boardmember Wilmarth to approve the variance for the hardship stated was seconded by Boardmember Garber. Yeas: Garber, Huddleson and Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. CH/PB/dg Respectfully submitted, Chuck Huddleson, Chairman )z i3 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator VJ