Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/13/1988M ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 13, 1988 Regular Meeting — 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 13, 1988 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Lancaster, Wilmarth, Coleman, Lawton, Nelson and Huddleson. Boardmembers absent: Thede. Staff present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode. Minutes of the Annual Meeting of September 81 1988, Approved as Published The minutes of the September 8, 1988 annual meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1892. Section: 29-133(1) , by Patrick Vaughn for American Continental Corp., 3837 Arctic Fox — Withdrawn by petitioner. "--This appeal was tabled from the September meeting and is now being withdrawn at the petitioner's request." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes updated the boardmembers regarding this variance which was tabled from last months meeting. An agreement has been made between the City, home owners and the applicant, to allow the petitioner to build a single family dwelling on one large lot. Construction of the proposed bike path will be allowed on one end of the remaining lot. The only issue to resolve is the concern of who will be responsible to maintain the 39 foot wide bike path area. Mr. Barnes complemented the members of the board for the manner in which they handled this controversial issue. Appeal #1893. Section 29-133(1) , by Patrick Vaughn for American Continental Corp., 2301 Arctic Fox — Withdrawn by Petitioner. "---This appeal was tabled from the September meeting and is now being withdrawn at the petitioner's request." See Appeal #1892. ZBA Minutes October 13, 1988 • Page 2 Appeal #1894. Section 29-133 (3), by James Heaton, 416 N. Roosevelt -Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14.47 feet for a carport addition to a single family residence in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house was built with a one car garage. The owner desires to have an additional covered parking area, and the only feasible location is the area in front of the existing garage. It is desirable to protect both vehicles from the weather. ---Staff comments: If the trees are kept, the carport will not be too visible." No letters were received, and no notices were returned. This lot is located in an older subdivision, Mr. Barnes stated it is common in the older parts of town to find homes that were built with single -car garages. At the time of construction two -car garages were unimportant; the lifestyles then didn't warrant the need for them. Now the petitioner proposes to build a 16 foot carport addition onto the front of the existing single -car garage. The result of the addition will be a 14.47 foot front yard setback instead of the required 20 foot front yard setback which is measured from the property line. In this instance, the property line is located six feet behind the sidewalk. The addition will meet the required five foot side yard setback. Two large trees that frame the front of the house will buffer the addition. Additionally, Mr. Barnes said while driving through the area he noticed most homes had single -car garages. Some did have two -car garages, but those were generally built on wider lots. He noted there are no carport additions in the area at the present time. James Heaton told the board he and his wife both work and are a two car household. The desire for the carport is to alleviate the problem of having one car unprotected from the weather. The proposed carport will be an open structure and will be used solely for vehicle storage. The paint and shingles will match the existing house. This request is not an upgrade over the standard. Boardmember Nelson commented it is only equal to what others who live in newer homes and subdivisions have. His concern, though, is the board will be setting a precedence for others in the area wanting to do the same thing. However, he feels a legitimate hardship exists, and if other variance requests are heard by the board, they will have to be dealt with case by case. Boardmember Lancaster believes the hardship is the location of the property line, which sets six feet behind the sidewalk. The intention of the code is met because the addition will setback 20 feet from the street. He made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Coleman. Yeas: Lancaster, Wilmarth, Coleman, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. L ZBA Minutes October 13, 1988 • Page 3 Appeal #1895. Section 29-595 (d), by the City of Fort Collins, 417 W. Magnolia — Approved with conditions. "---The variance would allow two ground signs for the Lincoln Center Terrace to exceed the allowable 120 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow individual letters spelling "The Terrace" to be placed on two brick walls located within the new garden of the Lincoln Center. The letters equal six square feet of signage and are located in the BG zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The sculptured walls of the garden are part of the fence enclosing "The Terrace". The letters are only 6 square feet, but the code requires that the area of the entire wall be counted as signage. The letters have been kept small, so as not to detract from the overall aesthetics of the garden. ---Staff comments: The area of the "B" wall sign is 206 square feet, the area of the "F" wall sign is 144 square feet." No letters were received, and no notices were returned. Mr. Barnes explained the similarities of this request to other variances that have been heard in the past. He said the need for a variance is common when letters are used in conjunction with walls or fences. He went on to clarify the sign code's peculiar formula that is used to determine the sign area of a ground sign. --A ground sign is solid and has no free air —space between the top of the sign and the ground.-- First, the area of the sign face (the letters) are measured. In this case, six square feet. That figure is multiplied by 1-1/2. Then the portion of the sign structure which exceeds 1-1/2 times the area of the letters is added to the six square feet, thus computing the final sign allowance figure. The walls that the proposed signs will be adhered to are part of a project called "The Terrace". These walls will be linked with wrought —iron and will encompass an outdoor sculpture garden at the Lincoln Center. The proposed signs will be located at the two entrances into the garden. David Siever, Director of the Lincoln Center, brought a model of the proposed project as an aid to show the proper size prospective of the walls with relation to the building and surrounding landscaping. He indicated that the walls, at their highest peak, will be 6-7 feet in height. The walls are not straight up—and—down, but are curving walls with several elevations. Steve White, Facilities Project Manager, added that the material used for the letters will be solid —colored plastic. The signs will not require lighting. Several of the boardmembers feel that a precedence for placing letters on walls and fences has been set. Boardmember Nelson said the sign code needs to be revised and the petitioner shouldn't have to deal with a part of the code that no longer does what it at one time was intended to do. Boardmember Lancaster agreed. It is impossible to place a sign on any sort of structure and still be within the limits of the current code. Boardmember Coleman commented if this sign were not adhered onto a structure, it would be well within the limits of the code. He feels the request is completely reasonable. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to ZBA Minutes October 13, 1988 • Page 4 grant the appeal with the condition that the sign is to be duplicated as per the drawings submitted. Boardmember Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Lancaster, Wilmarth, Coleman, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1896. Section 29-133 (2), Dennis Sovick, 1416 W. Mountain -Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width of an undeveloped lot from 60 feet to 50 feet to allow the construction of a new single family home in the RL zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is in the older part of town and was platted with only 50 feet of lot width. The lot has never been developed, but now the petitioner desires to buy the lot and construct a house. Without a variance nothing can be built. This same type of variance was granted for this lot in 1986, but a home was never built. ---Staff comments: The vast majority of the lots in this area are 50 feet wide." No letters were received, and no notices were returned. Mr. Barnes explained to the board this lot, is the only originally platted, undeveloped lot on this part of Mountain Avenue. In 1986, a variance was granted to allow the "yellow house" near Rolland Moore Park to be moved to this site. Those plans did not pan out; therefore, a variance is again being requested to allow a single family dwelling to be built on a 50 foot wide lot. The code requires that a lot be 60 feet wide. The subdivision plat shows that all of the lots in this subdivision are 50 feet wide, with the exception of the corner lots. Many of these 50 foot wide lots have large, two-story houses built on them. Dennis Sovick proposes to build a 2,200 square foot, two-story contemporary -Victorian structure. He feels the size and design will be consistent with the neighborhood. Additionally, instead of placing a driveway along the side of the lot --an access pattern that is consistently repeated in this neighborhood— he proposes to access the garage from the alley located at the rear of the property. Bill Stuart, 1420 W. Mountain, addressed the board. He as no quarrel allowing the house to be built, but feels that the side yard setback needs to be complied with. His concern is over -crowding. Mr. Barnes explained that the proposed structure will meet all of the setbacks required by the zoning and building codes. The boardmembers agreed the neighbors concerns should be taken into consideration. However, all of the setback requirements are being met; it is the legal right of the owner to build on this lot. Boardmember Lawton commented that similar issues have been dealt with in the past. He feels the hardship, of the owner desiring to build on this 50 foot wide lot, is legitimate. He and other boardmembers encouraged the petitioner, as a consideration to his neighbor, to monitor his contractor closely so that no construction errors are likely to be made regarding the setback measurements. Boardmember Nelson cautioned the petitioner. If the ZBA Minutes October 13, 1988 Page 5 setbacks at the time of inspection are not accurate, an additional variance request at a later date might not be received well by the board. A motion was made by Boardmember Lancaster, and seconded by Boardmember Nelson to grant the variance. Yeas: Lancaster, Wilmarth, Coleman, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1897. Section 29-133 (4), by William and Dorothy Heitman, 1201 Del Mar — Approved. "--The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet for a carport addition to a single family residence in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is a corner lot and the house faces the legal side yard, so although this is a request to reduce the rear setback, the addition is actually being built on the side yard which requires only a 5 foot setback. This is the only practical place to build the addition. --Staff comments: This is a variance request which the board hears occa— sionally, wherein the house facing a street side lot line is usually considered a peculiar circumstance of the property, and thereby a legi— timate hardship." No notices were returned. The following letter was received: "October 11, 1988 Dear Mr. Barnes, My husband and I own the home at 1305 Westward Drive. We share a common fence with the Heitmans. The back of their house faces the east side of our home. It is difficult to shelter one's possessions in a single —car garage as is predominant in our neighborhood. The Heitmans seek to house their boat which now sits in the backyard. We would be happy to see them able to do this. The addition of a carport will no way bother us or detract from the aesthetics of the home or neighborhood. Thus, we urge you to grant this request for modification of the zoning code. Sincerely, Amanda Elliott" " ZBA Minutes October 13, 1988 • t Page 6 Mr. Barnes stated this variance is needed to deal with the unusual situation that a corner lot sometimes presents. He explained that a property can only have one front lot line. A lot line is defined in the code as the line that divides a lot from the street. On a corner lot the narrowest of the two street frontages is considered to be the front of the lot, regardless of which way the house faces. In this case there is 60 feet of lot frontage on Westward Drive, and 110 feet of lot frontage on Del Mar. Therefore Westward Drive is considered the legal front, even though the house faces Del Mar, the legal side yard. The petitioner desires to build a carport addition onto the end of the existing single —car garage, which is the actual rear yard, --but for all practical purposes is considered the side yard--. In this zone, the code requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. The variance requested is to reduce the required 15 foot rear yard setback to 5 feet, which is consistent with the requirements of the code for the side yard setback on a normal lot. Bill Heitman said the carport addition is needed to provide shelter for a second car and boat. The proposed carport's roof line and the building materials used for construction will match the existing house. Discussion between the boardmembers was brief. Boardmember Lawton felt this variance request was similar to another appeal heard by the board earlier in the meeting. He feels that the petitioner is bringing his home up to the same standard as others have done in this neighborhood and community. He noted that the progression of society has dictated the change of lifestyles; numerous families, out of necessity, are currently two —car households. Boardmember Coleman made a motion to approve the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. Yeas: Lancaster, Wilmarth, Coleman, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. Other Business: ---Election of officers Newly elected officers to the Zoning Board of Appeals are Frank Lancaster, Chairperson; and Jane Thede, Vice Chairperson. ---New member orientation The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Dave Lawton, Chairman /,. Aw�. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator DL/PB/drg