HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/10/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the August 14, 2003 Meeting
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — July10, 2003
8:30 a.m.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760)
11Chairperson_ Steve Remington ( Phone_ (H) 223-7138 11
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday July 10, 2003, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Donahue
David Lingle
Andy Miscio
Steve Remington
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Alison Dickson
Dwight Hall
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Stockover made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 12, 2003, meeting.
Lingle seconded the motion. The motion passed with Remington and Donahue abstaining.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 2
3. APPEAL NO. 2431 — Tabled to the August 14, 2003 meeting.
Address:
661 Parliament Court
Petitioner:
Terry Colbert
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D) (2) (C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to
allow a 20' x 14' deck on the rear of the home. The deck already exists and was constructed at
the time the house was built.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The home has a walk -out basement and the deck was constructed off the kitchen when the home
was built. There is an open space, natural area behind the home, so the intent of the rear setback
standard is met.
Staff Comments:
The purpose of the rear setback standard is to ensure separation between buildings and structures
in order to provide for privacy, light, air circulation, etc. There are no developable lots behind
this property. The Board has heard similar rear setback requests previously and has determined
that the purpose of the standard is promoted equally well.
Barnes requested that Chairperson Remington move this item to the top of the agenda and
explained that the item was before the Board as a result of a complaint filed by a neighboring
property owner. Barnes stated that the neighboring property owner was unable to attend the
meeting, although the neighboring property owner supplied slides and a letter. Barnes said the
Board may feel that it is appropriate to have dialogue with the neighboring property owner
because the Board has to find that approval is not detrimental to the public good. Bames noted
that he had a discussion with the Applicants and they were agreeable to tabling the hearing.
Board Discussion:
Donahue stated that he would like to hear the comments of the individual in opposition and was
in favor of tabling the appeal. Lingle made a motion to table Appeal 2431 to the August 14,
2003, meeting. Donahue seconded the motion.
Miscio wanted to hear from the Applicant. Stockover wanted Barnes to read the Board the letter
from the opposing party. There was a discussion held regarding if it would be best for the Board
to hear the appeal or table the appeal until the August 14, 2003, meeting.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 3
Applicant Participation:
Kathy Colbert, 661 Parliament Court, addressed the Board. Colbert stated that she wanted the
hearing to be fair, and if the Board felt it was necessary to table the appeal she would be
agreeable.
Remington stated that he appreciated the Applicant's flexibility. There was a discussion held
regarding the legal aspects of a fair hearing.
Vote:
Yeas: Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: Stockover.
4. APPEAL NO. 2427 — Signs were approved, but size was denied.
Address: 1250 West Elizabeth Street
Petitioner: Weylan "Woody" Bryant
Zone: CC
Section: 3.8.7(G)(9)
Background:
The variance would allow the McDonalds restaurant to have two menu board signs instead of the
one allowed, and would allow each sign to be 43 square feet, 6.5 feet tall instead of the 35 square
feet, 5 feet tall that is allowed. The restaurant will have a double drive-thm, and one sign is
necessary for each drive-thm lane.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A.
Staff Continents:
It is probably necessary for each drive -up lane to have a menu board for proper and efficient
operation. However, if the ZBA is inclined to allow the extra sign, it is recommended that the
Board determine that the signs are being screened from public view to the maximum extent
possible.
Barnes stated that the City's Sign Code allowed a property to have one free-standing or
monument type sign per lot. A corner lot is allowed to have two free-standing signs. Although
there is an exception for a restaurant with a drive-thm that is not on a corner lot and in this
circumstance the property is allowed a bonus sign. The McDonalds on West Elizabeth is not on
a comer lot and therefore McDonalds would be allowed two signs, one advertising sign and one
menu board. Barnes stated that the McDonalds on West Elizabeth will be demolished and a new
restaurant will be built in the existing location. The new restaurant will have a double drive-thm
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 4
instead of the just one. Bames stated that the Applicant is requesting a variance to allow one
additional menu board for the additional drive-thru lane.
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Bames showed an aerial photograph. The
property to the rear of McDonalds has since been developed into the Campus West Loft
Apartments. Bames stated the configuration of the lot will remain basically the same, although a
"pork chop" will be added to accommodate the additional drive-thru lane. A fence will be added
to the west lot line as well as some landscaping for additional screening.
Remington asked staff if there were size restrictions for the signage. Bames replied that 35
square feet was the maximum size allowed, but the Applicant proposed 43 square feet.
Applicant Participation:
Weylan Bryant from Huitt-Zollars addressed the Board. Bryant is a professional engineer and
represented the McDonalds Corporation. Bryant reviewed the site plan, the proposed changes to
the drive-thru, and the addition of a fence and landscaping. Bryant said that both of the proposed
signs are McDonalds standard size, four -panel signs. Bryant stated that there are three other Fort
Collins McDonalds that employ the method of the double drive-thru lanes.
Lingle asked staff if the other Fort Collins McDonalds had to go through an appeal process for
the double drive-thru lanes and signage, specifically the McDonalds on College and Harmony.
Bames replied no and that the property on College and Harmony was unique because it has three
street frontages and was allowed three free-standing signs. Lingle then asked if the other area
McDonalds had to request a variance for the size of their signs. Bames stated that the 35 square
foot maximum only applies to interior lots.
There was a discussion held regarding signs being invisible from a public street. Barnes stated
that according to Code a sign that is not visible from a public street or property line is not
regulated, but if a sign is visible from the street or a property line then the sign is regulated. The
McDonalds signs would be visible on the north and west property lines.
Remington asked the Applicant why he could not comply with the size restrictions. Bryant
replied that the sign is a standard McDonalds sign that is ordered from a company by the name of
Florida Plastics and that is the only size that they make due to the different menu options.
Wayne Bishop with McDonalds Corporation in Denver addressed the Board. Bishop reiterated
that the size of the sign was a standard sign for McDonalds. There was a discussion held
regarding the size of the sign and the removal of one panel.
Miscio asked how many square feet total the Applicant was requesting over the limitation. It
was decided that the Applicant was requesting a total of 86 square feet.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 5
Donahue asked the Applicant about the fence that stopped at the north property line according to
the site plan. Bryant responded that there would be a cobble bed there, and he was concerned
about sight triangles.
Board Discussion:
Stockover was in favor of approving the appeal due to McDonalds already existing on the
property prior to the development to the rear of the property, the signs would be to the rear of the
property, and the Applicant's intention to add screening. Miscio felt the signs were
informational and was in favor of approving the appeal. Lingle stated that he would have a
difficult time approving the appeal on the equal to or better than standard. Lingle also struggled
with the neccessity of 43 square feet per sign instead of the 35 square feet that is allowed.
Barnes noted that corporations such as McDonalds have to comply with the Sign Code.
Remington agreed with Lingle.
Donahue asked the Applicant what was the purpose of having two drive-thru lanes. Bishop
responded that 65% of McDonalds business goes through the drive-thru and the two drive-thru
lanes allows for smoother flow of traffic and reduction of traffic clutter.
There was a discussion held regarding what the Applicants felt was their hardship.
Bishop stated that if the restaurant was rebuilt it would be neccessary to have the double drive-
thrus.
Stockover asked staff if the hardship could be based on the need for a double drive-thru and the
configuration of the lot. Barnes replied no because the Applicant does not have to tear down the
building and the City does not require double drive-thrus. Miscio felt the double drive-thru
would be an improvement to the property. Bryant explained the need for the double drive-thrus
stating the reason was to prevent traffic from stacking up in the alley.
Remington asked staff if the Applicant would have to remodel their sign in 2009 to come into
compliance with the Sign Code. Barnes replied yes. Donahue asked if the "Thank You" signs
counted toward sign allowance. Barnes stated that the Code allows companies to have on site
traffic directional signs, which are not regulated, as long as the signs are no larger than four
square feet, but the "Thank You" sign does not qualify as a directional sign.
Lingle stated that he would have a difficult time supporting anything from an equal to or better
than standpoint. Donahue agreed. The Board discussed how to approach the variance request.
Remington was still concerned with the size of the proposed signs and would like the Board to
place a condition on the approval that the signs would have to come into compliance with the
Sign Code in 2009. Remington asked if there was any value to making two motions for the
variance request. Eckman stated that it might make sense due to the variance requests, one for
the number of signs and one for the size of the signs.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 6
There was a discussion held regarding additional screening that what was proposed. Remington
made a motion to approve appeal 2427 with respect specifically to the two menu board signs
instead of one. Remington stated that the granting of the variance request was not detrimental to
the public good. Remington noted that there are exceptional physical conditions to the property
such as the configuration of the property, the access to the drive-thru restaurant is from an alley
at the rear, which creates traffic flow hardships that the Applicant is trying to mitigate with a
dual drive-thru approach to get cars off of the alley way. Remington stated the second sign for
the double drive-thru is warranted. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue
Nays: None.
There was a discussion held regarding the size of the signs. Stockover was in favor of approving
the variance request regarding the proposed size of the signs due to the signs being on the rear of
the property and the screening. There was a discussion held what would be considered unique to
the property.
Stockover made a motion to approve appeal 2427 to allow the additional size of the signs finding
that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Stockover stated the
following hardships: (1) the property is narrow across the back at 103 feet; (2) the drive-thru is
fed off of an alley versus a street; and (3) if the alley were actually a street the sign would be
conforming. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion failed and thereby the request to increase
the size was denied.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover and Miscio.
Nays: Lingle, Remington, and Donahue.
4. APPEAL NO. 2428 — Approved.
Address:
1404 Ponderosa Drive
Petitioner:
Douglas Doty
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D)(2) (C)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to
10 feet in order to allow the construction of an 8' x 20' detached storage shed and bird house
combination building.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 7
Staff Comments:
A letter was read from Thomas W. Borrillo, owner of 2225 West Lake Street, which stated his
concerns if the appeal was approved.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property is at the comer of
Ponderosa and West Lake Street. The property has two existing detached buildings and the
proposal is to remove the two buildings and replace them with one building. Barnes stated that
birds are already being raised and being kept in the building. It is not a new use. Barnes stated
the new building would be ten feet from the property line to the east —not any closer than the
existing structure.
Remington asked if the Applicant was allowed to have multiple structures. Barnes stated that the
Zoning Department only regulates setback compliance when a storage shed exceeds eight feet in
height or is larger than 120 square feet. If a building was below these limits a property can have
as many building as desired.
Applicant Participation:
Doug Doty, 1404 Ponderosa Drive, addressed the Board. Doty stated that birds are not being
bred and raised on the property. The shed functions only as a housing unit.
Lingle wanted to know why the proposed shed could not be moved five feet closer to the house.
Doty responded that there is a concrete slab in the way that functions as a patio. Doty stated that
the birds have been on the property for 28 years.
Board Discussion:
Lingle made a motion to approve appeal number 2428 based on the equal to or better than
standard. Lingle stated the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The
general purpose of the standard is to provide adequate light, ventilation, and privacy to adjacent
properties. The approval of the appeal (reducing the setback by five feet) is equal to or better
than for the following reasons: (1) the existing construction of one of the sheds that is on the
property now is built at the current setback that is being requested for the new building; and (2)
screening by mature lilac bushes from the adjacent properties. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2429 — Appeal was tabled to the August 14, 2003, meeting
Address:
4001 South College Avenue
Petitioner:
Westec Construction
Zone:
Commercial
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 8
Section: 3.8.7(G)(6) and 3.8.7(D)(5)(C)
Background:
The variance would allow three ground/freestanding signs along South College Avenue instead
of the one that is allowed by the sign code. Specifically, the variance is requested in order to
permit both a preview menu board (ground sign) and regular menu board (freestanding sign) in
addition to the original KFC ground sign. The variance would also increase the amount of
signage allowed along College Avenue from 155 square feet to 331 square feet (the actual
amount of signage for the property will not exceed the total allowed sign allowance for 462
square feet based on the College Avenue and Boardwalk frontages combined).
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The building recently underwent remodeling with the drive -up windows remaining at the same
south wall location. The relocation of drive lanes and the drive -up window to the north side of
the building where a menu board could have been installed without any variance (as it would
have been considered a freestanding sign taking allowance off Boardwalk) would have been
prohibitive as it would have made a substantial change to the site plan thus affecting existing
parking, drive through lanes, sidewalks, etc.
Applicants prefer to also have the smaller preview board approved as the third South College
ground/freestanding sign in order to help expedite the ordering process thus reducing traffic/cue
spacing problems which may occur.
Staff Comments:
The intent of the standard that is requested to be varied is to reduce the sign clutter along streets,
thereby preserving and enhancing the streetscape. It may be difficult to find that three signs in
close proximity promote the standard equally well or better than. Therefore, the Board may have
to find some hardship. The large KFC/A&W monument sign is a nonconforming sign that needs
to be brought into compliance in 2009. The Board may determine that in order to mitigate the
presence of three signs along College Avenue, a condition to bring the large sign into compliance
now might be appropriate. Additionally, the new preview board could possibly be turned at an
angle in order to reduce the amount of sign face that is visible from College Avenue.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is on the corner of College Avenue
and Boardwalk. Barnes explained that every property is allowed one free-standing sign per
street frontage and this property has two street frontages. The property is allowed one sign on
Boardwalk and one on College Avenue. Barnes explained that in this particular instance the way
the Applicant has set the signs up the Applicant has ended up with three signs oriented toward
College Avenue. Permits were not issued for the preview and menu board. The Applicant
requested to have the three College Avenue signs as well as increased sign allowance for the
property.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 9
The ground sign face has been changed to reflect A&W and KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken).
The signs are visible from the street. The ground sign will have to come into compliance with
the sign code in 2009 because it is non -conforming due to its size and height. Barnes explained
how a property received sign allowance.
Lingle asked if the signs were installed out of compliance. Barnes replied that when KFC
remodeled the building a sign permit was issued for new all signage and to change the face of the
existing non -conforming ground sign to reflect that A&W became part of the property. When
staff did the sign inspections they noticed a new preview and menu board in place.
Applicant Participation:
Chris Thompson, representative for Westec Construction, addressed the Board. Thompson
stated he would like to keep the existing menu board and the monument sign with the addition of
the preview board. Thompson explained that at the time the sign permit was obtained that he
was unaware that the menu boards being considered signage. This issue was not brought to his
attention until final inspections. Thompson stated that the opportunity for options has been lost.
Thompson explained that the old menu board had to be replaced due to deterioration and that he
faced corporate regulations.
Lingle asked if the free-standing preview board were not there would the menu board still
require a shift of square footage allowance from Boardwalk to College Avenue. Barnes said that
even if the preview board was not there the Applicant would still be approximately 150 square
feet over what they would be allowed on College Avenue. There was a discussion held
regarding how signs were designated by street.
Board Discussion:
Lingle stated he had problems with approving the variance request, specifically from having one
allowed ground sign to three ground signs. Lingle did not see any other logical location for the
menu board. Lingle was inclined to allow the menu board, but not the preview board. Lingle
stated that the City does not have to adapt their code to corporate demands.
There was a discussion held regarding which sign options would comply with the Sign Code.
Remington asked the Applicant why he was unable to comply with the Sign Code. Applicant
Thompson responded that he probably could comply with the Sign Code, but the owner spent a
lot of money re -facing the signs. Thompson was aware that by 2009 the sign will have to come
into compliance with the Sign Code. Thompson felt the situation was unfortunate.
Miscio asked the Applicant how he would prioritize his needs. Thompson stated that the
preview board was not important, but would like to maintain the menu board. Thompson stated
that the ground sign could be adjusted. Barnes explained the Applicant's options.
Remington was not in favor of granting a permanent exception. The Board discussed what they
felt was appropriate signage that would be in compliance with the Sign Code. Lingle made a
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 10
motion to deny appeal 2429 in regards to the number of allowable free-standing signs along
College Avenue requiring that there not be more than the one that is allowed by the Sign Code.
Donahue seconded the motion. The Board discussed the necessity and importance of the
preview sign. The Applicant was in favor of tabling the hearing until the next meeting so he
would be able to present some options to the Board.
Vote:
Yeas: Lingle, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: Stockover and Remington.
Lingle made a motion to table the request regarding the sign allowance until the next Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting to allow the Applicant to modify their appeal request. Donahue
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO. 2430 —Approved with conditions.
Address:
1504 Longs Peak Street
Petitioner:
Gene Homolka
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.3 (D)(2)(d)
Background:
The variance would allow an 18' x 26' detached garage/personal-use shop located at the
intersection of Longs Peak and East Prospect Rd. Specifically, the structure is already existing,
construction having started summer of 2002 and finishing winter of 2003. The required setback
along East Prospect is 15'. The variance request would reduce the south side -yard setback from
15 feet to 1' at the right rear corner of the structure in order to allow it to remain where it is
located.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The structure is located approximately 15 feet from the curb along East Prospect Rd. , one foot
from the property line. There is a 15 - 20 year old Choke Cherry Tree located directly north of
the garage structure. The tree would have had to have been cut down to comply with the setback
and still be able to have a driveway access to the garage.
Staff Comments:
Prospect Road is a major arterial street, so the garage is not impacting any other property, and
part of the garage is hidden by the fence. However, the building is still noticeable. If the Board
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 11
finds grounds to grant a variance, perhaps a condition that the owner plants an additional tree or
two in the parkway to help screen the building would be appropriate.
A letter from Dillyn and Laveta Elder of 1513 East Lake Street was read in support of the appeal.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is on the comer of East Prospect
Road and Lake Street. The house is oriented to Lake Street and currently has a side -loaded
attached garage. The new detached garage was recently constructed one -foot from the south lot
line, along Prospect. A privacy fences exists along the property.
Remington asked if a building permit was issued when the new structure was built. Barnes
replied no. Miscio asked how long the structure had been there. Baines said approximately one
year.
Applicant Participation:
Gene Homolka, 1504 Longs Peak Drive, addressed the Board. Homolka stated he would be
willing to put in additional landscaping to block the structure from public view.
Miscio asked why the Applicant did not get a building permit. Homolka stated that he should
have obtained a building permit. Stockover asked who built the structure. Homolka responded
that he built the structure.
Board Discussion:
Remington asked staff how the request came before the Board. Barnes stated the Building
Inspection Department referred it to the Zoning Department. Homolka was cited for building the
structure without a building permit.
Lingle stated he suspected that the Board would have granted the variance if Mr. Homolka would
have gone through the appropriate channels due to the large mature tree. Remington and Miscio
agreed with Lingle. Lingle stated he would like a condition placed on the approval that the
Applicant plant additional trees in the parkway. Barnes suggested that the Applicant work with
the City Forester to determine how many and what species of tree to plant.
Stockover made a motion to approve appeal number 2430 based on the hardship stated.
Stockover stated that if the detached structure would be moved over a mature tree would have to
cut down. Stockover placed a condition on the approval that the Applicant add additional
screening of one to two trees with input from the City Forester to screen the building from
Prospect Road. Stockover stated that there was no detriment to the public good. Lingle
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 12
6. APPEAL NO. 2432 —Approved with conditions.
Address:
320 Locust Street
Petitioner:
Lyn McCormick
Zone:
NCM
Section:
3.8.3(1)
Backeround:
The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in the existing detached
building on the rear of the lot. Specifically, the owners conduct an attorney -at -law practice from
the home. A portion of the home occupation activity (for paperwork and computer work only)
is conducted from the detached building. The home occupation ordinance requires all of the
business activity to be conducted in the house.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The rear building used to be a painting shop and was ideally set up to use as an area for clerical
work. No customers are supposed to come to the rear building. Customers meet with the
attorney in the home on an appointment only basis.
Staff Comments:
The Board has granted variances in the past to allow home occupation activities to be conducted
in existing detached buildings in the old part of town when the home has no attached garage that
can be converted. This home does not have an attached garage.
A letter was read from Linda Hamilton of 817 Peterson Street in support of the appeal.
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated on the east -side of the property
there is an alley. The property has a large detached building to the rear of the property. Barnes
said that there was a parking area between the back of the house and the detached building.
Applicant Participation:
Robert McCormick, 320 Locust Street, addressed the Board. McCormick stated the previous
owner of the property had a commercial painting operation conducted in the large detached
building. The McCormicks received a notice that they were not in compliance with the home
occupation licensing ordinance, and that is why they are before the Board. McCormick reviewed
his improvements to the property. McCormick explained his type of work.
Lingle asked how many staff members the McCormicks have working on the property.
McCormick stated he has two people that work on a temporary basis. The employees are not
there on a regular basis.
Board Discussion:
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 13
Lingle asked if the home occupation ordinance had a maximum number of employees that would
be allowed. Barnes stated that more than one cannot be working on the property at a time.
Remington was in favor of approving the appeal with two conditions that approval would apply
to this particular owner and this particular business.
Donahue made a motion to approve appeal 2432 based on the hardship standard. The hardship
was that the detached building was not attached to the house whereas if the detached building
were connected to the dwelling unit a variance request would not be required.
to add Remington's conditions that approval applies only to the specific us
specific owner. Donahue stated that the proposal would not be detrimental to
Stockover seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
7. APPEAL NO. 2433 — Approved.
Address: 130 North Mack Street
Petitioner: Phillip and Amy Benton
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.6(E)(3)
Backeround:
Donahue agreed
e stated and the
the public good.
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to
10 feet in order to allow for the construction of a 14'x 24' detached, one -car garage.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The house is small, containing only one closet. The petitioner's would like a few feet of extra
length added to the garage for storage. There is currently no garage or driveway on this lot and
the lot is only 97.5 feet in depth.
Staff Comments:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property fronts on Mack Street
and to the north a gravel alley ends. The property currently has a detached shed that will be
removed in order to place the garage. The new garage will take access off of Mack Street
instead of the alley. The garage will not be oriented towards the alley.
Applicant Participation:
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 14
Phillip Benton, 130 North Mack Street, addressed the Board. Benton stated that he wanted to
access the garage in a similar fashion to the garage across the alley —parallel garages with the
alley between them and a 45 degree entrance into the garage.
In favor of the anneal:
Chris Marshall, 947 Laporte Avenue, addressed the Board and expressed that he was in favor of
having the appeal approved.
Board Discussion:
Lingle was in favor of approving the appeal and agreed with the Applicant's position.
Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2433 based on the equal to or better than standard.
Remington stated that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good.
Remington said that the general purpose of setback standard is to allow light, ventilation, and air
between properties. The proposal as submitted promotes the general purpose of the standard
because 10 feet allows adequate space given the layout of the lot behind this one. The alley also
allows for adequate space, light, ventilation and air as well. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
7. APPEAL NO. 2434 — Approved.
Address:
2540 East Drake Road
Petitioner:
Allen Curtis
Zone:
T
Section:
4.9(B)(1)(b)
Background:
The owner and petitioner request a variance as provided in Section 2.10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b) of the
Land Use Code to allow installation of a permanent structure that contains a use which was
existing on the property at the time the property was placed in the T zoning district. Specifically,
the variance would allow the construction of a new 78' x 108' greenhouse building. The new
building will be located 30' west of an existing greenhouse. There are two ways to receive
approval to construct a new building in the T zone. One way is to obtain a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, the other is to rezone the property.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Cargill conducts Canola Oil research. In order to do this, controlled conditions are required for
year round operation. There are already two greenhouses on the property and additional space is
needed in order to maintain the operation. One of the existing greenhouses will be converted to
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 15
office space in the future, and it is necessary to have the new greenhouse operational prior to the
conversion. If the desired expansion is delayed an interruption of the product development
cycles will take place causing significant economic erosion of the business.
Staff Comments:
The building is considered an accessory building, and is similar to the other accessory buildings
that are existing on the property. The building is not for the purpose of being able to conduct an
activity that is not already being conducted.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the T zoning district is a
"holding" zone designation where there are no immediate plans for development and the
property owner has requested to be placed in the T zoning district. Barnes explained the T
zoning district designation and its restrictions.
Barnes stated the Applicant proposed to build another greenhouse structure. The greenhouse
would be similar to the other greenhouses on the property.
Miscio asked staff under which standard the Board would need to approve the request. Barnes
replied that the Board is not allowed to use the equal to or better standard for properties in the T
zoning district. There was a discussion held regarding the hardship and the rezoning of the
property.
Applicant Participation:
Allen Curtis, 3109 South Taft Road, representative for Cargill addressed the Board. Curtis stated
that the request is a continuation of what Canola Oil research has been doing in the past. Curtis
stated that Cargill will consider rezoning in the future. Lingle asked why Cargill has not looked
at rezoning right now. Curtis responded that it is a time issue. Miscio asked Curtis about the
hardship. Curtis stated that the hardship would be the interruption of Cargill's operation.
The facility manager for Cargill, addressed the Board. He stated that the stopping of Cargill's
research would be the hardship. He explained Cargill's research procedures. He stated that
Cargill will be looking into rezoning the property. Cargill is currently at capacity and needs a
new greenhouse.
Board Discussion:
Remington was in favor of approving the appeal. There was a discussion held regarding the
hardship and the rezoning of the property. Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2434
based on the hardship standard and referred boardmembers to the Applicant's statement of
hardship. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Remington
stated the situation was unique with a research/greenhouse operation in the T zoning district.
Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 16
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
8. APPEAL NO. 2435 —Approved.
Address: 516 Edwards Street
Petitioner: Jim Liebl
Zone: NCM
Section: 4.7(E)(4) and 4.7(F)(1)(g)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 4' 9"
in order to allow the rear 12 feet of the home to be removed and replaced with a 17-Foot addition.
The new addition will line up with the existing west wall of the home and will extend 5 feet
further to the rear than the existing rear of the home. The variance will also allow the new
addition to have a flat roof instead of a roof having a minimum 2:12 pitch in order to allow the
roof to function as a deck.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing home is already at a nonconforming setback. If the new addition is moved over to
comply, then the proposed room will be smaller. In order to be able to use the roof as a deck, it
needs to be flat. By using the roof as a deck, then less of the back yard is used up. Also, a
pitched roof on the addition will shade the back yard, so the flat roof reduces the amount of yard
that is shaded.
Staff Comments:
The new west wall can probably be constructed at a 5-foot setback without any hardship being
imposed on the owner. The rooms will be three inches smaller.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. There are two variance requests regarding this
appeal. One is a three inch reduction on the west -side setback and the other is to allow the new
addition to have a flat roof. The NCM zone requires that a minimum of 2/12 or a maximum of
12/12. Barnes stated the exceptions.
The property is an interior lot with an alley behind the building. Barnes showed what items
would be removed.
Applicant Participation:
Jim Liebl, with Style and Rail Construction, addressed the Board. Liebl stated the proposal has
the approval of the Historic Preservation Department. Liebl stated that the size of the home and
the size of the lot are the major issues. Liebl explained the project.
ZBA July 10, 2003
Page 17
Board Discussion:
Remington asked if a 40-foot lot was typical in the area. Bames replied that the majority of the
lots are 50-feet wide, but it is not unusual to find 40-foot wide lots. Barnes explained the code
change regarding two-story homes with a second -story deck that allowed a flat -pitched roof as
opposed to a minimum roof pitch of 2/12.
Stockover felt the proposal was a good use of space due to the narrow lot. Stockover made a
motion to approve appeal number 2435. Stockover stated that the approval would not be
detrimental to the public good. Stockover stated that the hardship was a narrow lot and the
Board would only be approving a setback variance of three inches. Stockover stated that the
porch addition on the roof was equal to or better than the code. Stockover found that the general
purpose of the standard was met by the code allowing access to the porch from a second -story
addition. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Miscio, and Donahue.
Nays: None.
9. Other Business
There was no other business.
Meeting adjo ed at 12:35 p.m. n
Steve Re ' gt n, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Petitioner's Letter P 77 X,))
HURT-ZOLL U,, INC r A582 South Ulster St. r Suite 1303 r Denver, CO 80237-2639 , 303.7,10.7325 phone t 303.22d.9997 fax r huitt-zollers.com
IIItItllttttltltltltlltlllllttttltltlltllllttllllttltlttltltll
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
281 N. College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522-0580
Attention: Mr. Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
Dear Mr. Bames:
Monday — June 2, 2003
Sent Via: ❑ Is' Class ❑ FedEx
❑ Facsimile to:
❑ Email to:
❑ Courier Z Hand Deliver
Re: Submittal for Zonine Variance Review
Multiple Menu Boards
MCDONALD's RESTAURANT
1250 W. Elizabeth Street
City of Fort Collins, CO
HZI JN: 16-0217-01
As we've discussed, and per the requirements of Mr. Ted Shepard (Chief Planner, City of Fort Collins),
we are pleased to submit the following items in support of the necessary Zoning Variance Review for
the installation of two menu boards for the above noted project:
• HZI Check #1299, payable to "City of Fort Collins" in the amount of $30.50 ($25 Application Fee
plus $0.50 for each of the 11 addresses for owners of record for real property within 150 feet of the
project— as provided by Ms. Liz Martinez in the Larimer County, Office of the Assessor).
• Fax Transmittal from Ms. Liz Martinez (Latimer County, Office of the Assessor) to me dated April
11, 2003 noting the Owners of Record for Real Property located within 150 feet of the project.
All Nine (9) copies of Drawing SP-1, "Site Plan" dated 05/30/2003 showing the planned improvements
to the site, including the location of the two planned menu -boards in the northwest corner.
• Nine (9) copies of Drawing L-1, "Landscape Plan" dated 05/30/2003 showing the planned landscape
improvements to the site.
• Nine (9) copies of the Florida Plastics "Flipboard & Flipboard Enhancements for FP43 —
Dimensional Drawing and Specifications".
• Nine (9) color copies of the planned menu board elevation, as prepared by Florida Plastics.
As you can see from the enclosed information, and as noted above, these new menu boards are planned
for the dual drive -thin configuration located in the northwest comer of the lot (reference: key note #4 on
drawing SP-1). For the dual drive-thru configuration to work properly, both menu boards are necessary.
To screen the off -site visibility of these menu boards from the northern and western property lines, a six-
foot high wood fence (reference: drawing SP-1) is proposed parallel to the western property line, as well
as extensive landscaping along the western property line and within the center traffic control island
(reference: drawing L-1).
We understand from the Zoning Variance Review guidelines that your team will fill out the necessary
Application Form and that the Zoning Board of Appeals meets on the second Thursday of each month
beginning at 8:30am in the City Council Chambers (located at 300 W. Laporte Avenue). We
respectfully request that this item be placed on the next available Zoning Board of Appeals hearings and
look forward to presenting this issue to the Board for their consideration.
�eivron-t,a- �eit�ic�i Nr7.Zfv i�i it c�. a llw ?ri
Mr. Peter Barnes - City of xt Collins: Zoning Administration - -j
Submittal for Zoning Variance Review: Multiple Menu Boards H(`�"T'-_ZULL ?\;
—
June 2, 2003
Page 2
Please feel free to call upon receipt and review should you have questions. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
INC.
P.E.
National Society of
Professional Engineerse
SlgnaWy,, NSPEUmmed Memba
cc: Mr. Wayne Bishop, McDonald's Corporation w/Enclosures
Mr. Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins: Planning w/o Enclsoures
file: i:IprojU602171docsUpb060203.doc
Petitioner's Letter B _ ---.
June 9, 2003
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VARIANCE_ REQUEST
1. WHY VARIANCE IS REQUESTED:
I'm applying for a variance to the City of Fort Collins for a building permit
thaw] encroac at o the require Me easement code. I wish to build
one structure S feet x 20 feet instead of two smaller structures that are not
regulated by City code. If I were to follow code, a portion of the building would
rest on the back patio which is not acceptable. This new structure will be a
combination bird house and storage shed.
2. THE HARDSHIPS ARE:
A. The depth of my backyard is only 35 feet to the patio edge, which leaves me
very little flexibility in building size and position.
B. Alternate locations in the yard are limited also by the amount of shade that
exists. Birds need a lot of sunlight for proper health.
C. I believe one building will be more esthetically pleasing than two buildings.
�.. REASONS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL:
A. A 5 foot encroachment on the back or east property line is all that is needed.
B. The buildings will be an upgrade to current buildings.
C. The building will provide my birds protection from West Nile Virus better
than they are now.
D. This will look like a castle compared to the house four blocks down on
West Lake Street that truly is a junk yard.
E. The solar exposure is only at this location.
F. Any other site in the yard would look terrible:
G. I believe one building would look nicer than two buildings.
Thank you,
Dougas Doty