No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1993 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 8, 1993 1 . Roll call. 2 . Appeal 2056. The variance would allow the property to have 3 freestanding signs instead of the 2 signs allowed by code. Specifically the variance would allow an Amigo' s Drive-Thru restaurant to have a 20 sq. ft. , single-face menu board sign in addition to the two Amigo's I.D. signs located along Harmony and Mason. The property is in the HB zone. Section 29-595 (H) by Kevin Callahan of Shaw Sign and Awning, 4600 S Mason. 3 . Appeal 2057 . The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 ft. to 4 ft. in order to allow the rear 8 feet of the house to be demolished and a new 12ft. addition to be constructed in its place. The home is located in the NCL zone. Section 29-119(5) by Jan Watson, 818 W Oak Street. 4 . Appeal 2058. The variance would reduce the rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 ft. to 13 ft. in order to allow an addition to the side of the residence. The home is located in the NCL zone. Section 29-119 (4) by Roger Egli, 916 Woodford Avenue. 5. Appeal 2059. The variance would reduce the required 5 ft. wide landscape strip along the south and north lot lines to 0 feet, and reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscape islands to 0% in order to allow a small car rental agency in addition to the existing auto glass business. The introduction of this new use in the HB zone requires that the property be brought into compliance with the code. Section 29-493( 1) , 29-493 (2) (f) by Al Thompson, 2901 S College Avenue. 6 . Appeal 2060 . The variance would reduce the required street side setback along West Stuart Street from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 121X26 ' addition to the north side of the house. The home is located in the RL zone. Section 29-133 (5 ) by Don and Karla Nolan, 2001 Lexington Court. 7 . Appeal 2061. The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Swallow Road from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a 20'X24 ' addition to the south side of the home. The house is located in the RL zone. Section 29-133(5 ) by Susan and Gary Murphy, 3037 Conestoga Court. 8 . Appeal 2062. The variance would reduce the required 5 foot wide parking lot landscape strip along the rear lot line to 0 feet, and reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscape islands from 6% to 0%, for a new parking area located behind the old Collins Cashway building. The property is in the IL zone. Section 29-493( 1) , 29-493 (2 ) ( f) by the Coloradoan, 1300 Riverside Avenue. 9. Appeal 2063. The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. Section 29-133 (2 ) by Hank Lewandoski, 1932 Promenade Way. 10 . Other business. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting April 8, 1993 Appeal 2056 --- 4600 S Mason --- Petitioner: Kevin Callahan of Shaw Sign and Awning --- Zone: HB q ,0 --- Section 29-595(H) --- The variance would allow the property to have 3 freestanding signs instead of the 2 signs allowed by code. Specifically the variance would allow an Amigo' s Drive-Thru restaurant to have a 20 sq. ft. , single-face menu board sign in addition to the two Amigo' s I.D. signs located along Harmony and Mason. The property is in the HB zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: In order to allow the drive-up lane and window to function efficiently, it is necessary to have the menu board sign detached from the building an adequate distance in order to allow stacking for sufficient food preparation time. Since the property has only 2 street frontages, the code allows ony two signs, but it is important that a drive-up restaurant have a menu board sign for the drive-up lane. --- Staff comments: The owner's plan calls for landscape screening in front of the sign in an attempt to screen the sign from the street. If the sign is screened from the street, then it is not considered a "sign" , and no variance would be needed. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping, along with the new landscaping proposed along Harmony and Mason streets, will adequately screen the sign. However, the shrubs that are planned in front of the sign will not mature to a 5 foot height for several years. Therefore, if the Board grants a variance it will probably be temporary in nature. When the shrub height reaches 5 feet, the menu board will no longer be a "sign" . Appeal 2057 --- 818 W Oak Street --- Petitioner: Jan Watson, contractor. G --- zone: NCL �( --- Section 29-119 (5 ) --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 ft. to 4 ft. in order to allow the rear 8 feet of the house to be demolished and a new 12 f t. addition to be constructed in its place. The home is located in the NCL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The lot is very narrow, only 40 ft. wide. Lining up the new wall at the same setback as the existing wall allows for a more functional floor plan and will look better aesthetically. Since 8 ft. is being removed and being replaced with 12 ft. of new construction, only an extra 4 ft. will be added to the house at a 4 ft. side setback. --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2058 --- 916 Woodford Avenue --- Petitioner: Roger Egli, owner --- Zone: NCL --- Section 29-119 (4) --- The variance would reduce the rear yard setback along the J north lot line from 15 ft. to 13 ft. in order to allow an addition to the side of the residence. The home is located in the NCL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The home is already existing on the lot with a rear setback of less than one ( 1 ) foot. Since the home is located so far to the rear of the lot, an addition to the home must also be. In order to match the existing home ' s roof pitch and to line it up with the existing construction the additions must be built in this location. --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2059 --- 2901 S College Avenue --- Petitioner: Al Thompson, owner --- Zone: HE zone --- Section 29-493( 1) , 29-493(2) (f) --- The variance would reduce the required 5 ft. wide landscape strip along the south and north lot lines to 0 feet, and reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscape islands to 0% in order to allow a small car rental agency in addition to the existing auto glass business. The introduction of this new use in the HE zone requires that the property be brought `TT into compliance with the code. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: If the 5 ft. landscape strip is required, then all the parking in the front and along the south side of the building would be lost. Providing any landscaped islands would result in the loss of needed parking. Access to the overhead garage door will also be made difficult if the 5 ft. side landscaping is required. --- Staff comments: Requiring the 5 foot setback along the north and south lot lines for the parking area in the front of the building would result in only a 20 foot wide curb cut. City standards for curb cut widths along the frontage road are 25 to 35 feet in order to allow for safer and more efficient ingress and egress. ,1 Appeal 2060 --- 2001 Lexington Court --- Petitioner: Don and Karla Nolan, owners --- Zone: RL zone --- Section 29-133(5 ) --- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along West Stuart Street from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 121X26 ' addition to the north side of the house. The home is loacted in the RL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The owners desire to build a dining room/bedroom addition. They believe that this is the only practical location for the addition. This corner lot is not rectangular in shape. Rather, it is more pie- shaped, so that the rear of the addition will actually be 30 feet from the street side lot line. Only the front 5 or 6 feet of the addition will be closer than the required 15 feet. --- Staff comments: This corner lot has an unusual configuration due to the curve in West Stuart Street. Appeal 2061 --- 3037 Conestoga Court --- Petitioner: Susan and Gary Murphy, owners --- Zone: RL zone 0 --- Section 29-133 (5) --- The variance would reduce the required street side setback 4-0 along Swallow Road from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a 20 'X24 ' addition to the south side of the home. The house is located in the RL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: See Petitioner' s letter. In addition, due to the layout of the existing home, this is the most practical location for an addition. --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2062 --- 1300 Riverside Avenue --- Petitioner: The Coloradoan, buyer --- Zone: IL zone --- Section 29-493( 1) , 29-493 (2) (f) ---- The variance would reduce the required 5 foot wide parking lot landscape strip along the rear lot line to 0 feet, and reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscape islands from 6% to 0%, for a new parking area located behind the old Collins Cashway building. The property is in the IL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: See Petitioner' s letter. --- Staff comments: If the Board considers granting this variance, perhaps a time limit condition would be appropriate since the applicant is indicating that this may be a temporary parking lot. In 1985 and 1987 the Board granted variances eliminating the 5 foot landscape strip along the railroad to two other businesses along Riverside. The Board determined that in those two instances, ( 1) there was no aesthetic or practical value to landscaping the area along the railroad, and (2 ) the railroad tracks act as a built-in buffer and are a unique circumstance of the lot which satisfies the intent of the ordinance. Appeal 2063 --- 1932 Promenade Way --- Petitioner: Hank Lewandoski, owner and contractor. --- Zone: RL zone --- Section 29-133(2) --- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. rr --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: There is no additional l� land available to buy. All the other homes in the subdivision are setback 20 feet. In order for the 60 foot width required 4 -0 to be met, this home would have to be setback 43 feet from the front lot line. Aesthetically, the home would be an oddity in the neighborhood. All of the setbacks will be complied with. --- Staff comments: The petitioner was not the original developer of this subdivision and had nothing to do with the platting of the lots. A home could be built on this property at a much greater setback then the other homes in the subdivision. This would place the house back far enough where the backyard privacy of the existing home to the south would be compromised.