HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/12/1986e
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 12, 1986
Regular Meeting - 8:00 A.M.
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
June 12, 1986 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Dodder, Thede,
Lieser, Lawton, Leis, and Johnson.
Boardmembers Absent: Walker
Staff Present: Barnes, Roy, Brayfield
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 8, 1986 and the
Special Meeting of May 16, 1986 - Approved as Published.
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 8, 1986 and the Special Meeting
of May 16, 1986 were unanimously approved.
Appeal No. 1740:
Section 118-81 (D) (2) (a),
Colorado Division of Wildlife,
with Condition.
by Dave Ferrin of the
317 W. Prospect - Approved
"---The variance would reduce the required
q parking lot setback along
Prospect from 15 feet to 6 feet for a new parking lot in the BL zone.j
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing parking spaces back
out on to a private drive, and several accidents have occurred due to
inadequate site distances. The Division of Wildlife wants to remove
this existing parking, and the only feasible location to move it to is
in front of the building. The only way to meet the code and still
provide enough parking would be to remove part of the building.
---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that street trees be
planted along Prospect, and additional screening be provided by either
berming or evergreen trees. Also, the landscape plan should be
approved by the City Forester."
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the variance was requested by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife, located directly east of the Holiday Inn on
W. Prospect. .The proposal is to remove an old parking lot and replace it
with landscaping, and build a new parking lot in the lawn area directly in
front of the building. Because this was a new parking lot, the parking
code requirements would have to be met. The project complies with the 6%
interior landscaping requirements, however, a variance was requested to
reduce the required landscape strip along Prospect from 15 feet to 6 feet.
ZBA Minutes - Jun12, 1986 •
Page 2
Petitioner Dave Ferrin, representing the Colorado Division of Wildlife,
spoke in favor of the variance, stating that the existing parking lot was
too small, and situated so that exiting was a hazard. They proposed to
remove all the existing parking and convert it back into a curb and
landscaping. The front yard would be made into a parking lot which would
provide about 12 more spaces for employee and customer parking. In
addition, some of the back parking would be utilized for RV and large
vehicle parking. A setback variance would be needed for the new parking
lot to maximize the number of spaces that could fit on the lot and to save
one of the large trees in the front of the building.
Boardmember Thede asked if the front sidewalk would be eliminated, and if
the requested setback variance would include the sidewalk or be in addition
to the sidewalk. Mr. Ferrin stated that the sidewalk would remain, and the
6 foot setback would be in addition to the sidewalk, for a total setback
off Prospect of about 10 feet.
Boardmember Dodder stated that City Staff recommended that street trees and
other screening - perhaps in the form of a berm - be used. Mr. Ferrin
stated that they had already been incorporated into the plan, and offered
to add any other recommendations to the final plan. Mr. Ferrin stated
further that there would be handicap parking and access to the building
which had not been indicated on the preliminary drawing. Mr. Barnes stated
that the City Arborist would need to review the final plans for
landscaping.
The Board asked Mr. Ferrin for clarification on plans for exiting and
directional signs for the parking lot. Mr. Ferrin replied that there would
be only one entrance/exit to the parking lot except in the autumn, when
increased customer parking requirements would force them to open up
overflow parking in the rear lot. At that time a chain would be removed
from the second exit. Directional signs would be in the form of painting
on the pavement or small posted signs.
Boardmember Leis asked if there was some way to locate the main
identification sign closer to the new drive to eliminate confusion of
clients who would be looking for the entrance. Mr. Ferrin stated that the
location shown on the drawing was the best one for conserving parking space
and for saving the existing spruce tree.
No one spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Boardmember Leis made a motion to approve the variance with the conditions
that street trees be planted along Prospect and additional screening be
provided by either berming or evergreen trees, and that the landscape plan
be approved by the City Forester. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion.
Boardmember Thede amended the motion to add the condition that the site
plan and other submitted documents be complied with. Boardmember Dodder
seconded the motion as amended. Yeas: Dodder, Thede, Lieser, Johnson,
Leis. Nays: None.
ZBA Minutes - June*, 1986
Page 3
•
Appeal No. 1741: Section 118-82 (D), by Nancy McNair for the Fort Collins
Preschool, 1815 Yorktown Avenue - Approved with
Condition.
"---The variance would allow a child care center in the RL zone to have a
playground enclosed with a 4 1/2 foot chain link fence instead of a
solid fence 6 feet high. This request is for the Fort Collins
Preschool, located in the Foothills Unitarian Church, which will be
licensed for approximately 25 children.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter.
---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the
neighbors and on the condition that the fence remain in its present
location. Since the fence is a considerable distance from any adjacent
lot, the intent of the Code is met."
Zoning Administrator Barnes gave background information, stating that the
preschool was classified as a child care center, and was required by Code
to surround the playground area by a six foot high solid fence. Prior to
1981 the Code only required a four foot high fence. The Code was changed
primarily because of nuisance type calls received by people living adjacent
to child care centers. When fences weren't tall enough or solid, children
would reach across the fence and bother the neighbors' pets. The existing
fence at the Unitarian Church is a four foot high chain link fence. The
church itself sits on a very large parcel of land so there are no neighbors
directly across the fence. The fence is constructed of wood posts and
rails covered with chain link fabric.
Petitioner Nancy McNair, representing the Fort Collins Preschool
Association, spoke in favor of the appeal. Ms. McNair presented some
photographs to the Board, taken from all the neighboring properties showing
the fenced playground. Ms. McNair pointed out that the playground and the
fence had been used by members of the Unitarian Church for 12 years without
any complaints from the neighbors. The existing fence complied with the
state and local health reqirements for daycare centers. Furthermore, there
was a large buffer area around the playground, so the spirit of the Code is
met.
Boardmember Dodder asked what plans they had for expansion. Ms. McNair
stated that they had no plans for expansion. Presently, two groups of
children are scheduled to use the facility, on alternating mornings. The
children use the playground from 1/2 to 1 hour a day. They are licensed
for 25 children at one time, although the younger class is limited to 20.
If there was a lot of demand, an afternoon class could possibly be added,
which would add another 1/2 to 1 hour of playground use per day.
Boardmember Lawton asked about the ages of the children attending the
preschool. Ms. McNair stated that the children were from 3-5 years old,
Boardmember Lawton expressed his concern that older children could climb
the fence and get out, and a six foot high fence would prevent that. Ms.
McNair stated that because they were a cooperative, they had a very high
ZBA Minutes - Jun, 1986 •
Page 4
adult to child ratio, and that it was her observation that the preschool
was a much more controlled environment than most daycare situations.
Boardmember Thede asked for clarification of the solid fence requirement.
Mr. Barnes replied that the intent of the "solid fence" was to provide a
visual buffer and to keep children from poking their hands through the
fence and bothering the neighbors' pets. Boardmember Thede asked if they
were asking for a variance from the vegetation screening also. Mr. Barnes
stated that they were requesting to keep the fencing as it is. Boardmember
Thede asked why the vegetation was not being addressed. Mr. Barnes stated
that the vegetation screening could be made an issue, but that the intent
of the Code should be considered.
Colin Cameron, Treasurer of the Foothills Unitarian Church, spoke in favor
of the variance. Boardmember Leis asked if there had been any complaints
from the neighbors regarding the use of the playground. Ms. Cameron
replied no. Boardmember Leis asked if they had planned on any additional
landscaping. Ms. Cameron replied no, but if it was required, the Board
would work on it. Boardmember Leis stated that he did not see the need for
any additional screening because of the playground's distance from the
property line. Boardmember Lieser concurred, stating that in her opinion,
the intent of the Code was met.
Boardmember Lawton asked if there was other renovation going on in
connection with the preschool. Ms. Cameron said the playground equipment
would be repaired and the weeds removed, but no other renovation was
planned. Boardmember Dodder thought that if there were any changes in the
facilities or in the size of the playground, the Board would need to review
the variance.
Boardmember Thede thought that the request for variance was only for
economic reasons. Boardmember Dodder thought that there was a valid
hardship due to unusual circumstances. The playground has an unusually
large buffer area around it which other daycare centers would not have,
which would serve the same purpose as a solid fence.
No one spoke in opposition to the variance.
Boardmember Dodder made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship
stated with the condition that it be reviewed if any of the following
situations occur: 1) the dimensions of the playground change, or 2) the
fence is moved, or 3) the physical structure of the church is increased, or
4) the the hours are extended. Boardmember Leis seconded the motion. Yeas:
Dodder, Lieser, Johnson, Leis. Nays: Thede.
Appeal No. 1742: Withdrawn
Appeal No. 1743: Section 118-91 (A) and 118-95 (A), by Dave Clack, 304 E.
Mulberry - Approved with Condition.
ZBA Minutes - June 12, 1986
Page 5
"---The variance would allow one sign advertising two home occupations to
be 13 square feet per face instead of the 2 square feet allowed by
Code. The sign identifies a photography studio and a hair salon in the
RH zone. The variance would also reduce the required setback for the
sign which contains no free air space and is located within 50 feet of
the driveway, from 15 feet to 2.5 feet.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: One 2 square foot sign is not
large enough to advertise 2 businesses, especially on a major arterial
street. The street is very wide and the cars generally travel 35 MPH,
necessitating a larger sign which will be legible. The sign will
actually be setback from the curb a total of 22.5 feet, so the intent
of the 15 foot setback requirement is met. Also, the driveway which
the sign is next to is a one-way, entrance only drive, so the sign is
not an obstruction for people exiting.
---Staff recommendation: None."
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the property
is located in the RH zone, and only one 2 square foot sign is allowed. Two
tenants want to advertise their home occupations and are proposing to
combine the two signs into one 13 square foot sign. The other variance
request is for the sign to be located within 50 feet of the driveway. The
sign has no free airspace, therefore the code requires that it be setback
15 feet from the property line. The property line is about 20 feet from
the curb, which would put the sign about 35 feet from the street or right
up against the building. Mr. Barnes also stated that there were some
larger signs such as Scavo Realty, Cabin Country and the church sign in the
area.
Boardmember Johnson asked Mr. Barnes to comment on how two businesses could
have home occupations in one location. Mr. Barnes stated that the Code
allows one home occupation license per dwelling unit, and there are two
dwelling units at this location. Boardmember Leis asked why this residence
could have businesses located on both sides of it. Mr. Barnes stated that
both of the other offices were allowed as a use by right.
Petitioner Dave Clack, 304 E. Mulberry, spoke in favor of the variance,
stating that a larger sign was needed to be visible to traffic on Mulberry.
He also pointed out that because there were commercial offices around his
home with larger signs, his sign would not be obtrusive to the surrounding
area.
Boardmember Thede expressed her concern that more businesses could move
into the house and expect to be given more signage. Mr. Clack stated that
only two people lived there, and that the owner of the house planned to
restrict the number of businesses in the house to two. Mr. Barnes stated
that there were only two dwelling units in the building, and therefore only
two home occupation licenses could be issued.
Boardmember Dodder asked about the business hours and the number of clients
Mr. Clack saw per day. Mr. Clack stated that he planned to be open for
ZBA Minutes - Junk , 1986 •
Page 6
business from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with some evening hours for working people.
He stated further that he was averaging from 2-3 clients per week, but his
business was growing.
Boardmember Dodder stated that he had a problem with the size of the whole
superstructure, and also with the size of the sign face itself.
Boardmember Thede agreed. Mr. Clack replied that he felt that the sign was
not too large because this was basically a commercial neighborhood.
Furthermore, the sign was designed to be compatible with the architecture
of the house, duplicating its design features and building materials.
Boardmember Johnson stated that there were several residential houses on
that block, and the block was more residential than commercial. Mr. Clack
emphasized that the drive was a one-way (entrance) only, so that the sign
would not be blocking the view of traffic trying to exit onto Mulberry.
Boardmember Thede stated that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember
Johnson stated that there was a valid hardship in that the business was
located on a major arterial street, and a 2 foot sign was too small to be
visible. Futhermore, a 2 square foot sign was not adequate to advertise
two businesses. Mr. Clack thought that a larger sign could prevent traffic
congestion when cars slowed down to find the businesses.
Boardmember Dodder said that a variance would not be needed for the sign if
Mr. Clack did not live there, and the business was not classified a� a home
occupation. Mr. Barnes said that it was not just a simple matter or moving
out and putting up the sign. They would have to go before the the Planning
& Zoning Board for the conversion from residential to nonresidential, and
they would also need lot area and parking variances from the ZBA. The RH
zone for nonresidential still allows only 1 sign, but it could go up to 60
square feet.
Mr. Wayne Vetterlein, owner of the property at 304 E. Mulberry, spoke in
favor of the appeal. The sign was designed with a lot of open air so it
was not heavy or obtrusive and at the same time would provide ample signage
for the businesses. The planter was added to provide greenery to further
enhance the sign. He felt that the main issue was the size of the sign,
rather than the design. Mr. Vetterlein stated that he would be willing to
add the restriction that only two businesses have signs on the board.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that if there were three dwelling units
in the building (and at one time there were), a 20 square foot sign would
be allowed. Multi -family buildings are allowed that to advertise anything
they want.
Boardmember Lieser thought that the actual sign faces should not exceed 6
square feet (combined), but had no problem with the superstructure.
Boardmember Thede thought the sign should not be any taller than 3 - 3 1/2
feet. Mr. Vetterlein stated that a 12" space should be allowed at the
bottom of the sign so that it would not be covered by snow in the winter.
The extra foot would put the sign at about 4 1/2 feet, which would
considerably smaller than the proposed design.
ZBA Minutes - Jun#12, 1986 •
Page 7
No one spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance with the condition
that the sign faces not exceed 6 square feet (total) and the height of the
sign not exceed 5 feet. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas:
Lieser, Lawton, and Johnson. Nays: Thede, Leis.
Appeal No. 1744: Section 118-41 (E), by Jon Metcalf, owner, 2707
Wyandotte, Approved.
"---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 13 feet for an addition to a single family home in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The addition is a passive solar
addition. If the required setback was met, the thermal storage
capacity would be reduced by 60 square feet, or 38%.
---Staff recommendation: None. The Code does consider it a valid
hardship if a condition exists which would hinder the owner's ability
to install a solar energy system."
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the property
was located in the Brown Farm development in the RL zone. The proposed
solar addition on the rear of the house would require a setback variance
from 15 feet to 13 feet. The Zoning Code authorizes the Board to grant
variances for hardships including situations or conditions which hinder the
owner's ability to install a solar energy system. A solar energy system is
defined as either active or passive.
Petitioner Jon Metcalf, 2707 Wyandotte, spoke in favor of the appeal
stating that the final plans would require a variance for a 12 foot setback
rather than a 13 foot setback. Mr. Metcalf stated that he was doing the
general contracting work himself, and was unaware of the setback
requirements when he started the project. The hole was dug prior to
submitting the plans because Mr. Metcalf wanted to get the backhoe in
before the neighbors planted sod in their yards.
Mr. Metcalf stated that he worked with City Engineer Doug Schwartz to
design the solar addition including orientation, window placement, and
overhang. The design itself would work well with the house. Eliminating 3
feet on the design would compromise the design so much that it would not be
a functional room. Mr. Metcalf submitted the plans to the Brown's Farm
Achitectural Control Committee for review, and they felt that it would be
aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.
Boardmember Johnson asked how high the addition would be. Mr. Metcalf
replied that it would go to the soffit level, right above the door.
Materials off the back of the house would be incorporated into the exterior
of the room to make it look like the rest of the house. Mr. Metcalf
submitted a plan to the Board that showed an elevation with the proposed
solar addition.
ZBA Minutes - JunIP2, 1986
Page 8
No one spoke in opposition to the variance.
•
Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for a 12 foot
setback for the hardship stated. Boardmember Leis seconded the motion.
Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Lawton, Leis, Johnson. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Eva Lieser, Chairman
Peter Barnes, Staff Support
EL/PB/bb