Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/13/1986n 0 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 13 1986 Regular Meeting, 8 30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 13, 1986 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, and Leis. Boardmembers Absent (excused): Johnson and Lawton. Staff Present: Barnes, Roy and Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 12, 1985, Approved as Published The minutes of the December 12, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1707 Section 118-41(F), by Vern Milton, Owner, 3285 Gunnison Drive — Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Yellow Pine Court from 15 feet to 7 feet for an addition to a single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The owner desires to add a first floor bedroom and bathroom for his handicapped mother and a garage for her use as well. This is the only feasible location to add the necessary rooms. The addition will be far enough back from the front lot line so that site distance at the corner will not be affected. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbor to the north." No notices were returned; one letter was received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that the proposed addition does comply to the lot to building area ratio requirements. Furthermore, the proposed addition does not impede vision for traffic. This appeal was simply a request for a reduction in setback requirements. Petitioner Vern Milton, of 3285 Gunnison spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that the addition would be 12 feet from the sidewalk, (further back than the existing fence) and set back from the front of the house. The fence would be removed as soon as the addition was completed. The side yard would then be landscaped in a similar fashion to the front yard, giving the front yard the appearance of wrapping around to the side. Mr. Milton stated further that he had approached all of the owners of February ZBA Minutes Page 2 neighboring properties with his plans and the letter that was read to the Board was a petition from all the adjacent property owners stating that they had no objections to the proposed addition. The Board then asked why Mr. Milton needed a two car garage and why it could not be built in the back yard where a zoning variance would not be needed. Mr. Milton replied that he needed a two —car garage for adequate space and that if the garage were to be built further back it would shade all the back windows of the house. Furthermore, his back yard was too small to allow the garage addition and still have enough space for recreation. The Board expressed its concern that the proposed garage additon would be so close to the street that a car parked in the drive would block the sidewalk. Mr. Barnes stated that the Board could approve the variance with the condition that a garage door opener be installed. Mr. Milton stated that an electric garage door opener was already planned. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1708: Section 118-41 (D), by Karen Kraft, owner, 3000 Ringneck, Approved.._ "---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet for a 2—car garage addition in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The owner has an in —home beauty shop which takes up quite a bit of floor area. She is getting married in May and desires to have more room. She proposes converting the existing one —car garage into a kitchen and family room and adding a 2—car garage in order to provide the 3 off street parking spaces required by code. The lot is classified as a corner lot, but the house faces the legal side. The addition will be on the legal front of the lot, even though it is the side of the house. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." One notice was returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the unusual shape of the lot presented a hardship; the house faces the legal side and the garage addition would face the legal front. Petitioner Karen Kraft, of 3000 Ringneck Drive spoke in favor of the appeal stating that she was getting married in May and needed more space. She proposed converting the existing garage into a kitchen and family room and adding on a 2—car garage. She runs an in —home beauty shop and needs the 2—car garage in order to conform to the parking requirements for her home occupation license. The Board was concerned with the appearance of the existing slab and whether or not the existing cottonwood tree would be left February ZBA Minus Page 3 in place. Ms. Kraft stated that the existing slab would remain, being used as part of the parking allowance. However, the cottonwood would probably be replaced with other landscaping because of the closeness of the garage addition and problems with cotton in the spring. The proposed garage would meet the requirements for setback from the neighboring house, and would not need a variance at all if it weren't for the unusual shape of the lot. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the harship stated. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1709: Section 118-95 by Randy Hurst, for CBS signs, 1298 North College - Approved. "---The variance would allow the Burger Inn Drive Thru restaurant to have two freestanding signs when the code allows only one freestanding sign. Specifically, the variance would allow a 28 square foot menu board sign in addition to their College Avenue sign. ---Hardship pleaded In order to facilitate traffic circulation through the drive -up, the menu board must be located some distance away from the pick-up window. In order to achieve this, the sign can't be on the wall of the building, but needs to be freestanding instead. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. This is a common request for drive -up restaurants, and has been granted in all previous cases." There were no notices returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that this was a common request for drive-in restaurants. Boardmember Dodder asked if the requested 28 square foot sign was larger than usual. Mr. Barnes stated that it was about average size for a menu board sign. Petitioner Randy Hurst, for CBS Signs, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that a second freestanding menu board sign was common practice in Fort Collins, and that the Burger Inn needed the second sign to be competitive with other drive-in restaurants. The 28 square foot sign was needed to accomodate a breakfast menu as well as the regular menu. Mr. Hurst stated further that the sign would be landscaped, done in bronze tones, with interior lighting. However, since the sign would be built at the back of the lot, and would face the back, it would not be visible from the street. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Leis made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nays: None. Appeals 1710 1711, 1712, and 1713 were heard together for purposes of discussion, but were voted on separately. , February ZBA Minutes Page 4 Appeal No. 1710: Section 118-43 (C) by John Snell, for Neighbor to Ngjighbor 200 First Street - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone from 60 feet to 50 feet. ---Hardship pleaded: An older substandard house has been demolished and the petitioner would like to build a new house on the lot. The lot is platted with only 50 feet of width, and without a variance nothing can be built. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There was one notice returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the proposed project was part of the Neighbor to Neighbor infill project. Substandard houses had been demolished on the lots and new ones were going to be built. The lots were platted with only 50 feet of width and without a variance nothing could be built. Petitioner John Snell, for Neighbor to Neighbor spoke in favor of the variance stating the proposed houses would be starter homes for low income families. The homes would be about 1040 square feet, and would sell for about $55,000. Boardmember Dodder asked if the lots could be replatted to accomodate three houses instead of the proposed four. Mr. Barnes stated that there would be no need to replat and the Board had the option of recommending that only three houses be built. Mr. Snell stated that it was important to the project to keep the costs down, and building only three houses instead of the proposed four would raise the price of each house approximately $4,000. Another option would be to build duplexes on the land, but Neighbor to Neighbor opted to build single family houses instead. Boardmember Thede stated that the project appeared to be well planned and the project was filling a need for low income housing in Fort Collins. A price increase of $4000 would put the houses out of reach for low-income families. The Board expressed its concern that the existing trees remain on the lots to retain the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Snell stated that the houses were to be built around the trees. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Theded made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1711: Section 118-43 (C), by John Snell for Neighbor tc Neighbor. 204 First Street - ApprnvaA_ "---The variance would reduce the required lot width for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone from 60 feet to 50 feet. February ZBA Minutes Page 5 ---Hardship pleaded: An older substandard house has been demolished and the petitioner would like to build a new house on the lot. The lot is platted with only 50 feet of width, and without a variance nothing can be built. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices returned. No letters were received. Petitioner John Snell spoke in favor of the appeal. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Refer to Appeal 1710 for details of the discussion. Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1712: Section 118-43 (C) by John Snell, for Neighbor to Neighbor, 208 First Street - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone from 60 feet to 50 feet. ---Hardship pleaded An older substandard house has been demolished and the petitioner would like to build a new house on the lot. The lot is platted with only 50 feet of width, and without a variance nothing can be built. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices returned. No letters were received. Petitioner John Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor spoke in favor of the appeal. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Refer to Appeal No. 1710 for details of the discussion. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nay: None. Appeal No. 1713: Section 118-43 (C) by John Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor, 212 First Street - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone from 60 feet to 50 feet. ---Hardship pleaded An older substandard house has been demolished and the petitioner would like to build a new house on the lot. The lot is platted with only 50 feet of width, and without a variance nothing can be built. --Staff recommendation Approval." There were no notices returned. No letters were received. • • February ZBA Minutes Page 6 Petitioner John Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor spoke in favor of the appeal. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. For details of the discussion please refer to Appeal No. 1710. Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Leis. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1714: Section 118-95 (A), by James Brannon for Woerner Properties, 2713 S. Shields — Approved With Condition. "---The variance would allow a 48 square foot freestanding sign located within 50 feet of an intersection and not containing the required free air space, to be setback 8 feet instead of the required 15 feet. The sign is the temporary development sign for the Cimmaron West PUD. ---Hardship pleaded: If the sign were moved back the required distance it would be in a drainage swale which is still under construction. The developer has Davidson Drive closed off to through traffic so it really doesn't interfere with traffic site distances. The sign will only remain up till approximately April. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for the hardship stated." There was one notice returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that if the sign was moved to satisfy the setback requiments, it would have to be located in a drainage swale that is still under construction. Because Davidson Drive is shut off to through traffic, the sign does not interfere with traffic site distances. Boardmember Thede observed that the sign in question was already up. John Dengler, of Dengler Associates spoke in favor of the appeal stating that Davidson Drive is not yet functioning as a public street; it is shut off and only construction traffic uses it. The projected completion date is April 1986. and the sign would come down as soon as the project was completed. Boardmember Leis expressed his concern that Davidson Drive was being used by construction traffic and if the variance was granted the City might be held liable if an accident occured at that intersection due to the sign. Mr. Dengler stated that he did not feel there was a hazard because the extra lane on Shields at that corner could accomodate the extra traffic flow. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the sign be removed by April 30th, 1986 or when the construction fence comes down, whichever comes first. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder. Nays: Leis, for the previously stated concern of liabililty. February ZBA Minutes Page 7 Other Business: Mr. Barnes presented a slide show demonstrating the changes caused by the adoption/enforcement of the City Sign Code. The meeting was adjounrned. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb