No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/1990 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA August 9, 1990 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal #1957. Eliminate the requirement for a solid wood fence, 6 feet in height, to screen headlights associated with a parking area located in the RL zone from adjacent residentially zoned property. This parking area will not be used at night. This request was heard at the July 12, 1990 ZBA meeting at which time the Board tabled the item until the August 9, 1990 meeting. This was done in order to allow the applicant additional time to revise the plan so that screening will be provided along the west lot line. Section 29-493(2) by Faith Evangelical Free Church, 1600 W. Drake Road. 3. Appeal #1958. Increase the allowed square footage of an identification sign for a single family dwelling from 2 square feet to 7 square feet. The sign advertises a home occupation called "Beth Williams' Hair Design", and is located on the fence along Timberline Road. Section 29-591(1) by Beth Williams, owner, 2948 Sombrero Lane. 4. Appeal #1959. Reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 7 feet, and reduce the required side lot line setback along Locust Street from 15 feet to 3 feet for an addition to a detached garage in the RM zone. Section 29-178(4) & 29-178(5) by Gary Huilregtse, owner, 901 Whedbee. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting August 9, 1990 Appeal_ 1957 ---1600 W. Drake ---Petitioner: Faith Evangelical Free Church, owner LA � ---Zone: RL ---Section: 29-493(2) --- The variance requested would eliminate the requirement to provide a solid wooden fence, 6 feet in height, to screen headlights associated with a parking area located in the RL zone from adjacent residentially zoned property. This parking area will not be used at night. This request was heard at the July 12, 1990, ZBA meeting at which time the Board tabled the item until the August 9th meeting. This was done in order to allow the applicant additional time to revise the plan so that screening will be provided along the west lot line. The amended variance request is to eliminate the requirement to provide headlight screening along the east lot line and all but the west 50 feet of the north lot line for a parking lot in the RL zone. The required headlight screening will be installed along the west lot line and the west 50 feet of the north lot line. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The requirement of a fence on this lot in the RL zone should be varied because of its existance in the floodway and because it is surrounded by the Ross Green Area and contiguous to Roland Moore Park. The landscaping will meet the requirements for the 75% opacity plus the existing foliage near Spring Creek will more than meet those requirements. The parking lot will be recessed to meet City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage requirements which also help opacity requirements. ---Staff comments: The only reason that the parking ordinance requires a fence is to screen headlights of vehicles from adjacent residential uses. If a parking lot is not in a residential zone or directly adjacent to a residential use then the code does not require a fence. There are a number of peculiar and. unique conditions of this property which set it apart from other parking cots in residential zones. 1. 14hile the property is surrounded by residentially zoned land, this land is open space owned by the City. This land will remain open space. The property is really not in a residential subdivision. 2. The three or four houses to the west are 200 to 300 feet away and are located on the other side of the bike path and Spring Creek. The rear yards of these houses are heavily landscaped in their own right and should not be affected by any headlights. 3. The parking lot will rarely, if ever, be used at night. 4. Due to the slope of the lot required by Storm Drainage Dept. along the west side of the parking lot, the cars will actually be pointing in a downward direction. This means that even if the lot was used at night the headlights would not be shining directly into anyones yard or house. 5. The entire lot is in the floodway. This means that no structures can be built due to the possibility of them becoming dislodged in a flood and floating downstream, where they might damage other property or persons. A breakaway fence may be a possibility, but even then there is no assurance that fencing might not float downstream. This may be an unnecessary risk since a fence for headlight screening is probably not needed and wouldn't serve the public good. The Storm Drainage Dept. would prefer not to have a fence installed. 6. While constructing a parking lot would change the character of the open space to a degree, at least it will have landscaping compatible to the area and will only be used on Sundays. Constructing a 6 foot fence around a lot surrounded by open space and wetlands would be an abrupt intrusion into the character of the open space and would be visible every day. The Natural Resources Dept. and the Planning Dept. would prefer not to have a fence installed. 7. If the City's property surrounding this lot were not zoned residential, then a variance would not be needed because a fence would not be required. Since there will be no residential development adjacent to this lot, the intent of the ordinance is met. The Code allows a variance to be granted based on hardships imposed by "extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of such piece of property." The preceding statements explain the uniqueness of this property. The Code also allows that a variance can be granted when it will not result in substantial detriment to the public good and when it will not impair the intent of the code. Requiring a fence will probably be more of a detriment to the a public good due to the visual appearance of the fence in the open space and its possible hazard during a flood, whereas granting the variance should not result in substantial detriment to the public good. The board has granted similar variances to delete the required fence when the directly adjacent property owner agrees to its deletion, but usually with the condition that if said property owner decides that the fence is needed, then the fence would have to be built. At the July meeting, several neighbors to the west expressed some concerns about increased noise from Drake Road if the existing vegetation is replaced with asphalt. Therefore, they felt that installing the fence at least along the west lot line would be important for them. The church has revised their plan to accommodate this request. Appeal #1958 ---2948 Sombrero Lane ---Petitioner: Beth Williams, owner S ---Zone: RL ---Section: 29-591 (1) --The variance would increase the allowed square footage of an identification sign for a single family dwelling from 2 square feet to 7 square feet. The sign advertises a home occupation called "Beth Williams' Hair Design", and is located on the fence along Timberline Road. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The back yard of this lot abuts Timberline Road, which is an arterial street. The traffic goes by at about 40 to 50 MPH, so a small sign is hard to read, and clients need to see the sign far enough in advance so they can signal to turn in order to decrease the possibility of a traffic hazard. The petitioner feels that the increase in area requested is not a substantial amount and having the sign on an arterial street does not negatively impact the neighborhood. ---Staff comments: The Board has granted a number of similar requests in the past when the home occupation is along an arterial street. The largest such sign allowed by a previous variance is 10 square feet. r l Appeal #1959 ---901 Whedbee G ---Petitioner: Gary Huilregtse, owner ---Zone: RM ---Section: 29-178(4), 29-178(5) ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 7 feet, and reduce the required side lot line setback along Locust Street from 15 feet to 3 feet for an addition to a detached garage in the RM zone. ---Petitioner`s statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to add on to the existing 2 car detached garage. This is the only location to add on to the building because there are existing mature trees to the east of the garage which would have to be removed if the addition were located there. There are also other existing improvements east of the garage. ---Staff comments: None.