Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/08/1986ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 8, 1986 Regular Meeting, 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 8, 1986, at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson, and Leis. Boardmembers Absent: Walker. Staff Present: Barnes, Roy and Brayfield. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 10, 1986, Approved as Published The minutes of the April 10, 1986, regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1731 Section 118-43 (E), by Edward Richmond, owner, 114 S. Loomis - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for an addition to a single family home in the RM zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house is already only 8 feet from the lot line. The petitioner would like to enlarge a bedroom and add a bathroom and family room. Architecturally and functionally this is the only location to build the addition. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that the lot is an L-shape and has two rear lot lines- A portion -of the house is .already only 8 feet from the rear lot line, and the addition will be lined up with the existing house. Petitioner Edward Richmond, of 114 S. Loomis, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he had been in contact with Mr. Steiner, the neighbor directly affected by the proposed project, and that he was in favor of it. ZBA Minutes, May 8,1986 • Page 2 Robert Steiner, of 626 W. Oak, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he owned the property directly to the south of Mr. Richmond's, and the lot line in question was closest to his garage. Mr. Steiner stated that he thought there was adequate distance between his garage and the proposed addition and that he was in favor of the variance. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1732 Section 118-91 (A), by Ed Farinelli, owner, 601 E. Swallow - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would allow a sign for a home occupation to be 10 square feet per face instead of the 2 square feet allowed by code. The sign identifies a chiropractic office in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The office is located on the corner of two wide collector streets, and because of the speed at which drivers drive by, a sign larger than 2 square feet is desirable so that people can see it before they get to the intersection. The sign face is only 2 square feet, but in order to make the sign attractive, it was mounted on a background which matches the house. This was done to make it more attractive, but since the background counts as part of the sign, the sign is larger than 2 square feet. ---Staff recommendation: None." No notices were returned; two letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that the home had been recently remodeled and the sign had been built to blend in with the home. The sign face was actually only 2 square feet (allowed by code), but the background, which must be included in calculating square footage, made it about 10 square feet. In the past, variance requests such as this have been made when the home occupation is located on arterial or collector streets where the traffic flow is faster. Petitioner Ed Farinelli, of 601 E. Swallow Road, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that his intention was to stay within code, that he did not know that the background counted when computing square footage of a sign face. He stated further that he had redesigned the sign for the convenience of his patients who had trouble finding his old sign because of the speed of traffic going down Swallow Road. The new sign was much more visible. The sign had been up for about 5 weeks, and he was not aware of the sign code violation until two weeks after it was up and the zoning office sent notice. ZBA Minutes, May • 1986 • Page 3 Zoning Administrator Barnes asked if the landscaping indicated on the plans would be installed. Mr. Farinelli stated that he planned to fill in the space at the bottom of the sign with burmed dirt and shrubbery, and that he was presently getting bids on the job. Mr. Farinelli expected that the job would be completed in about a month. Boardmember Thede asked if a professional sign contractor built the sign, expressing her opinion that there was a significant difference between the allowed 2 square feet and the 10 square foot size of the sign. Mr. Farinelli said that a sign contractor had designed the sign but must have been unaware of the inclusion of the background in computing square footage. The contractor had agreed to make any alteration necessary to the sign as required by the Board's decision. Boardmember Thede asked about lighting of the sign. Mr. Farinelli stated that lighting would be against code and that he had no plans for it. Boardmembre Lieser asked what impact the sign had on visibility because it was on a corner lot. Mr. Barnes stated that the sign was set back a good distance from the intersection, so it was not a problem. No one spoke in opposition to that appeal. Boardmember Leis thought that the sign face should be limited to the existing 2 square feet. Mr. Leis did not want to see the entire square footage of the sign (including background) being used at a later date. Boardmember Thede expressed her concerns over the precedent issue, stating that because it was a corner lot on two collector streets, she could see the possibility of a sign on every corner, which would not be desirable. Ms. Thede stated further that although the sign was attractive, the variance from 2 square feet to 10 square feet was too much. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the harships that the home occupation was located on the corner of two collector streets and that the intent of the code was being met because the actual sign face was only 2 square feet. Conditions were attached to the appeal that it remain for this particular home occupation, and the sign conform to the design submitted. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: Thede. Appeal No. 1733 Section .Loomis 118-81 (C) (1), by Jack Morris, tenant, 516 S. — Approved with Condition_ "---The variance would allow a part of a home occupation to be conducted in a detached garage, instead of within the dwelling as required by Code. Specifically, the variance would allow the garage to be used for storage purposes only, in connection with a maintenance business. The actual maintenance repair will be done away from the shop. ZBA Minutes, May 1986 • Page 4 ---Hardship pleaded: There isn't room to store the equipment inside the home, and because much of the equipment weighs as much as 350 pounds, it isn't desirable to drag the equipment across the floors in the home. No work will be done on the premises and there will be no exterior storage, so this should not be an imposition on the neighborhood. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." Two notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that home occupations are restricted by code to inside the dwelling only. Mr. Morris was appealing for a variance to use a detached building on the property, basically for storage. This was the most common variance request for a home occupation license. Petitioner Jack Morris, of 516 Loomis, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he had cleaned up the property, and that he had no intention of storing equipment outside in the yard. Mr. Morris stated that his equipment was too heavy to move in and out of the basement of his house, and that he needed to store it in the garage. He said that he would not be storing any combustibles, other than a can of gas for his lawnmower. Mr. Morris then submitted a letter written by his landlord, stating his consent to the proposed use of the garage, which Mr. Barnes read to the Board. Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Morris if he had any other business location in Fort Collins and if he was already in business. Mr. Morris replied that he had no other locations in Fort Collins, that he was moving his maintenance business down from Estes Park, and was currently waiting to start business here until he got the variance. Ms. Mabel Galyan, of 515 S. Loomis, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that Mr. Morris had cleaned up his property, and that it looked better than it had in years. She stated further that Mr. Morris had been a good neighbor and that she felt that his home occupation would be less disruptive to the neighborhood than the activities of past tenants. Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Morris about access to the garage - was it off the alley, or from the street. Mr. Morris replied that access was from the steet, and that there were two parking spaces behind the garage off the alley. Mr. Dodder asked how many vehicles were used in connection with the business. Mr. Morris replied that two were used, a station wagon and a half ton pick-up. Mr. Dodder .asked Mr_ Morris if he had any plans to put up a sign. Mr. Morris replied that perhaps he would erect a small sign saying "Parking in Rear" to direct anyone who would come to the house. Mr. Morris stated further that he did not expect any traffic to the house because of the nature of his business. Business contacts were made over the phone, his address was not advertised, and that the actual maintenace work was done on his clients premises (mostly restaurants). ZBA Minutes, May 8, 1986 Page 5 Boardmember Thede asked City Attorney Roy if such a variance would be attached to the property (and be applicable to future home occupations) or if it was attached to the home occupation, and would no longer be valid if Mr. Morris ceased to do business. Mr. Roy replied that zoning variances applied to use of the property, and therefore would be allowed for similar types of applications with similar hardships. There was much discussion of this issue; the Board was concerned that a future tenant might be allowed to use the garage for a business such as a beauty parlor without needing a variance. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that no exterior storage be used, and that the home occupation remain a similar use, with similar hardships. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1734 Section 118-81 (E), 118-81 (F), by Michael Gebhardt, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 600 E. Swallow, Approved with Condition. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 6 feet, and reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 25 feet to 6 feet for a detached storage building for a church in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addition, if the building was located so that it complied with both required setbacks, it would be encroaching onto a driveway, impeding circulation. The proposed location is currently a landscaped area in the corner of the parking lot. The existing fence and hedge will remain and will serve as a buffer to adjacent lots. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned; two letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that the storage shed would be located in the northest corner of the property. Boardmember Lieser asked if there were plans to replace the landscape island - Mr. Barnes replied no - the lot was built before there were any landscaping requirements, and there was no change of use to the property to require it. Petitioner Michael Gebhardt, of the Church of Jesus .Christ of Latter Day Saints, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that the church lacked adequate storage space for lawn equipment. The shed would be attractive, finished in brick veneer, and set on a foundation. There was much discussion of the proposed height of the shed and if it would block the neighbors' view of the mountains. Mr. Gebhardt stated that there was a tree on the proposed building site that blocked the view more than the shed would, but he was willing to keep the shed height at 12 feet or less to ZBA Minutes, May 8, 1986 Page 6 minimize the problem. Boardmember Leis asked what was between the shed and the neighbors' property line. Mr. Gebhardt stated that there was a 6 foot fence and a 6 foot hedge. Boardmember Lawton asked why the shed could not be built adjacent to the building to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Gebhardt replied that it would "stick out like a sore thumb". Several alternative sites were discussed, with regards to safety, aesthics, and efficiency of use. Mr. Gebhardt explained that the chosen location (away from the church) was the most practical because of the floor plan of the church and where the main entrances occurred. He also stated that a location in the center of the parking lot would pose a safety hazard because children could run out from behind the shed into an oncoming car. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated, with the condition that the shed construction conform to the plans submitted. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: Lawton. Appeal No. 1735 Section 118-81 (0)(1)(b), 118-81 (D)(2)(a), by Howard Brigham, for the American Baptist Church, 1012 Mantz Place - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would reduce the required width of a driveway in a parking lot with 45 degree angle stalls from 20 feet to 16 feet. The variance would also reduce the required parking lot setback along Shields Street from 15 feet to 13 feet, and along the east lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet. The parking lot will be a new 15-car parking lot for the American Baptist Church. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: If the required setbacks were met, the entire parking lot would shift to the east, causing the removal of a large existing tree and requiring the entire east side to be compact parking only. The church needs as many parking spaces as possible and the intent is to try and reduce the amount of cars which park on the other side of Shields, resulting in a lot of foot traffic across the street. Since the lot will not be used every day, and it is not a short-term parking lot, the 16 foot driveway should not present a problem, but it does allow for maximum use of the lot. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the exit onto Shields be labeled "Right Turn Only". Two notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that the American Baptist Church had recently acquired the property, and wanted to move the house off and build a parking lot. The proposed 16' driveway would be a ZBA Minutes, May 1986 • Page 7 one way drive, with parking on either side. This would be adequate because the lot was not short term parking and it would only be used several times a week. Staff recommended that a "Right Turn Only" sign be required on the Shields Street exit to facilitate traffic flow onto Shields and for safety considerations. Petitioner Howard Brigham, representing the American Baptist Church, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that when the church property was bought many years back, Shields was not such a busy street. Now the parking lot on the west side of Shields was a hazard because people had to cross the busy street to get to church. The proposed parking lot would help alleviate the problem. Boardmember Dodder asked what kind of landscaping would be done. Mr. Brigham stated that the two trees on the west side would be retained and they would try to save the other large tree on the southeast corner. Mr. Barnes suggested that if the variance was approved, that it be with the condition that the landscape plan be approved by the City Arborist. Mr. Barnes stated further that the parking lot plans had been reviewed by the City Traffic Department, which had suggested that a "Right Turn Only" sign be erected. Mrs. Ruth Moyer, of 620 S. Shields, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that she had lived in the neighborhood for 25 years, and felt that the proposed project would improve the quality of the neighborhood. She felt that a well maintained parking lot would be more attractive than the existing house which was owned by an absentee landlord, and was poorly maintained. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the conditions that a "Right Turn Only" sign be posted on the exit, and that the landscape plans be approved by City Arborist. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1736 Section 118-11 (definitions of signs, section B), by Gardner Signs, 1024 Lemany (Poudre Valley Hospital), Approved. "---The variance would allow 32 on -site traffic directional signs to be larger than the 4 square foot maximum size for such directional type signs. Specifically, 29 signs would be between 4 and 4.5 square feet, and three signs would be approximately 18 square feet. All of the signs are directional signs for parking or for the emergency entrance of the hospital, or informational in nature. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The information signs are designed to be compatible with the main I. D. sign, and are larger than the ZBA Minutes, May 8, 1986 Page 8 allowed 4 square feet in order to provide adequate size letters to be read from a distance. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The vast majority of the signs are very close to the 4 square foot limit. Only the three signs which direct people to the emergency exit are far in excess of the 4 square foot limit, but it is important that the lettering on these signs be large enough so that people can figure out where to go in a hurry." Three notices were returned; one letters was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that all of the signs are directional signs or informational - none are commercial signs. They are only classified as signs because they are over 4 square feet. Most of the signs are between 4 and 4.5 square feet; only 3 signs are larger. Petitioner Gunther Seligmann, representing Poudre Valley Hospital, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that major remodeling had been done on the hospital grounds, and Gardner Signs had been engaged to design a sign program for the project. Extensive changes have been made to the parking lot area on site and directional signs were needed to direct people to the new areas. The new directional signs were designed to blend in with the large main identification sign. Mr. Seligman stated further that maintaining the size of the lettering on the signs was important because many people using the hospital were entering it in a state of trauma, and clear identification was important. Boardmember Dodder stated that he had a hard time seeing the rationale of petitioning the Board for a variance of only 6 square inches - why not design the signs to conform in the first place. Anne Berry, representing Gardner signs, spoke to the issue, stating that the signs were designed to maintain the look of the main I.D. sign. To decrease the size of the blades would necessitate decreasing the size of the copy which would lose legibility. The current design calls for 3-inch copy, which is visible at about 100 feet. The smaller signs will not be illuminated, but will be done in reflective copy. Mr. Barnes stated that computing the square footage of a ground sign was complicated, and reducing the total square footage was not just a simple matter of taking off a few inches in height and width, as it would be with a freestanding sign on a pole. In order to arrive at the 4 square feet, more than just a few inches would have to be cut off to comply and because of the design of the sign, so much would have to be cut off that it would no longer be visible above parked cars. The Board found the hardship to be the size of the parking lot, the extensive changes to the hospital grounds, and the fact that patients were coming to the hospital in some state of trauma, needing clear identification signs to direct them. ZBA Minutes, May 80 , 1986 • Page 9 Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardships stated in the discussion and in the letter submitted to the Board by Mr. Seligmann. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1737 Section 118-41 (C), by Steve Barbier for Neighbor to Neighbor, 604 Ninth Street, Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a single family home to be moved onto a lot in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The existing home cannot be rehabilitated. There is no indoor bathroom in the existing house and this moved -on house will be a great improvement to the area. The lot was platted with only a 50 foot lot width. ---Staff recommendation: Approval" Two notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that a variance had been granted the previous month to add a bathroom onto the house, and the new proposal was to demolish the old house and move a new one onto the property. A variance would be needed because the lot was platted with only 50 feet of width. Larry Michaud, from Neighbor to Neighbor, spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Michaud stated that a house would be moved onto the lot to replace the existing house. The existing house has no indoor bathroom, and is in extremely poor repair; the new house would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Michaud stated further that a side yard setback variance would also be needed before the house could be moved onto the property, which had been overlooked when application was made for this variance. There was much discussion of whether or not the appeal should be tabled until adjacent property owners could be notified of the requested setback variance, or whether the setback variance should be heard with the original request. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to table Appeal No. 1737, and hear both the lot width and the setback variance at a special meeting. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Dodder. Nays: Lawton, Lieser, Johnson. The motion was defeated, 3-2. The Board decided to hear the original appeal for a variance on the reduction in lot width only. Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance on lot width for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. ZBA Minutes, May 8, 1986 Page 10 The Board then agreed to hold a special meeting to hear the requested setback variance on the property at 604 Ninth Street. The meeting was set for Friday, May 16, 1986, at 8:30 A.M., in the Council Chamber of City of Fort Collins City Hall. Notices will be sent out to the adjacent property owners one week prior to the meeting. Appeal No. 1738 Section 118-43 (B) and 118-43 (C), by Steve Barbier, for Neighbor to Neighbor, 217 Buckingham - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,000 square feet to 4,050 square feet, and the required lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet for a single family house to be moved onto a lot in the RM zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing house is in bad repair and can't be rehabilitated. Another house moved onto the lot in place of the existing one would upgrade the area. The lot was platted with only 45 feet of width. ---Staff recommendation: Approval" No notices were returned; one letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal. Mr. Barnes stated that the hardship expressed in the letter from Josephine Martinez was due to the sewer easement going through her property. Larry Michaud, for Neighbor to Neighbor, spoke in favor of the appeal. He described the house to be moved onto the lot, stating that it would meet all setback requirements, and that it would be replacing a house that had no indoor plumbing. The easement for the sewer line was across Mr. and Mrs. Martinez' property. The Martinez family had built a shed over the easement, and would .have to move it before the the sewer line could be installed. Mr. Michaud thought that the shed should not have been built there in the first place, but thought that most people do not understand easements. The Board wanted to know if there was any other easement that could be used for the project. Mr. Michaud stated that the easement across the Martinez property already existed, and no funds were available for the purchase of another easement. Boardmember Lieser asked if there would be any help from Neighbor to Neighbor to compensate for any damage done by the use of the easement. Mr. Michaud stated that Neighbor to Neighbor would do the work - moving and replacing the fence, moving a tree, and protecting the sod as best they could. Mrs. Josephine Martinez, of 233 Third Street, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that the use of the easement across her property to put in the sewer line would be a hardship to her family. A storage shed would have to be moved, sod would be disturbed, and a new fence taken down in several places. ZBA Minutes, May 1986 • Page 11 City Attorney Roy examined a copy of the easement agreement to determine the conditions of the agreement. The easement was acquired by judgement and decree of the District Court, in favor of the City of Fort Collins, paid for in 1978, for use as a right of way for an underground sanitary sewer line. Mr. Roy stated that sewer easements allow access for installation and repair, and that the erection of permanent structures on top of them which would interfere with that use is contrary to the easement. Therefore there was no right to compensation for having to move the shed because it shouldn't have been erected in the easement in the first place. Mrs. Martinez stated that the information was not given to her prior to the construction of the sheds. City Attorney Roy stated for the record that the easement was recorded April 10, 1978, so although there may not have been particular notice to the property owner in terms of any mailings, there was record notice. This easement would have been indicated by title insurance or deed. Boardmember Lieser stated that there was nothing that the Board could do about the hardship caused by the easement. It was up to the Martinez family and Neighbor to Neighbor to come to an agreeable solution. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Other Business: Mr. Barnes distributed copies of the proposed change to the definition of family as it relates to the Zoning Code. Also distributed were materials taken from The Citizen's Guide to Zoning. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb