Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/14/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 14. 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 14, 1985 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, Leis, Dodder, and Lawton. Boardmembers Absent (excused): Johnson Boardmembers Absent (unexcused): None Staff Present: Barnes, Roy, Zeigler, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 10, and the Special Meeting of October 21, Approved as Published. The minutes of the October 10 and October 21 meetings were both unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1693. Section 118-91 (C) by Bill Neal for Arrowstone Corp., Southwest corner of Drake and Shields - Approved with condition. ---The variance would allow a "for lease" sign to be larger than 6 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow a leasing sign to be 96 square feet for a mixed use commercial project located in the RP zone. The code only allows for a sign this large when construction starts. ---Hardship pleaded: The developer needs a large sign up before construction starts in order to get tenants to insure that there will even be a project. A small 6 square foot sign on 5 acres is not sufficient size to do the job. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the sign can only be up for 9 months. This location is not a typical residential lot. A large shopping center is currently being built across the street. If the variance is approved, it should also be conditioned on a sign no larger than the 96 square foot one proposed. There were no notices returned. One letter was received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes stated that the variance would only be needed until construction starts, after which a 100 square foot sign would be allowed during the period of construction. NOVEMBER ZBA MINI Page 2 • Petitioner, Bill Neal, representing Arrowstone Development Corporation, spoke in favor of the appeal.. Mr. Neal stated that a preliminary PUD has been approved and that the hearing on the final PUD as a commercial development is scheduled for November 18, 1985. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in January 1986, with completion in June 1986. Mr. Neal stated that although the site was zoned RLP, the corner is no longer a residential area. There is already a large development, Raintree, going in across the street. He stated further that a larger sign was needed to spark interest in the proposed development and to obtain pre -leasing agreements - and that 20% pre -leasing would be needed for the project to get off the ground. The sign would be similar in size and style to the temporary banner displayed earlier this year. There were no speakers opposed to the variance. Boardmember Walker made the motion that the variance be granted for a period of 90 days to begin on the date of approval of the final PUD, on the condition of said approval. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1694. Section 118-43 (B), 118-43 (C) by Jim Rice, 411 Garfield, - Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 5600 square feet, and the lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet for a duplex in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The owner just bought the property in May of this year. At that time it was a duplex. A fire destroyed a good portion of the building and the owner decided to rebuild it as it previously existed. When the contractor applied for the permit, the city found that the previous duplex was illegal in that one of the dwelling units had been bootlegged in. The owner would like this variance to be able to rebuild the building as a legal duplex, and simply have what use he bought the property for. There is no additional land available to buy. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. No notices were returned; one letter was received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes stated that this duplex was never legal although the RM zone does allow a duplex. Mr. Rice was issued a permit to rebuild the house as a single family residence, and if the variance is allowed the contractor will install another kitchen. Petitioner, Jim Rice, spoke in favor of the variance, stating that when he bought the property in May 1985, he bought it as a duplex. Since the zoning was RM he did not know that the duplex was illegal until the contractor tried to get a permit to rebuild. He would like to be granted the variance so that he could rebuild the duplex legally. NOVEMBER ZBA MINDS Page 3 • Mr. Tom Evans of 10905 County Rd. 15, an adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the variance. Mr. Evans was primarily concerned that the duplex was on a small lot and parking could be a problem. He also expressed concern that a variance in favor of the duplex would open the door for blanket approval for other properties down the street. Mr. Rice stated that he was aware of the potential parking problem and would be willing to rebuild the off-street parking places in back of the property. Boardmember Dodder made a motion that the variance be granted for the hardship pleaded; Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1672. Section 118-11 (definition) by Bill Beardslee, attorney for owners, 1940 Larkspur - Staff interpretation upheld. ---The petitioner would like the Board's interpretation of whether two related people and two unrelated people living with them constitute a family under the definition set forth in the zoning code. The petitioner also requests confirmation that four totally unrelated individuals cannot live together under the code. ---Hardship pleaded: The property was purchased on representation that it was a rental with no limitations. The owner bought the property on that premise and has had four people living there. The neighbors filed a complaint that more than three unrelated people are living in the house, a situation which is in violation of the code. ---Staff recommendation: Staff interpretation to be presented at meeting. One notice was returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes presented the staff's interpretation that under the code, only one family is allowed per dwelling unit and a family is defined in Section 118-11 of the code as "an individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage or an unrelated group of not more than three (3) persons living together in a dwelling unit." Mr. Barnes stated that because the living arrangement involved two brothers and two other unrelated individuals, it was clearly in violation of code. Mr. Beardslee, attorney for the owners, spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Beardslee stated that he was seeking an interpretation of the definition of family from the Zoning Board of Appeals and confirmation that four totally unrelated individuals could not live in one dwelling unit as .a family. Boardmember Thede inquired why Mr. Beardslee had not advised his client that the property had been misrepresented by the realtor. Mr. Beardslee NOVEMBER ZBA MIA • Page 4 stated that the realtor had been notified and that the degree of misrepresentation would be established by the Zoning Board of Appeals jn this hearing. Boardmember Dodder inquired if the code limited how far down the lineage the "blood relations" could be taken. Mr. Barnes stated that there were no limitations. Mr. Dodder inquired if two brothers could be considered one entity. Mr. Barnes replied no - two brothers were two entities. Boardmember Dodder inquired if a nuclear family would be allowed to rent to two unrelated persons. Mr. Barnes replied that under the home occupation code a family would be allowed to rent rooms to two unrelated persons if the home was owner occupied. Mr. Dodder asked why there was a distinction between owning and renting. Mr. Barnes replied that previously there was no distinction between renting rooms in owner occupied vs. non- owner occupied homes, but City Council felt that renting rooms of non -owner occupied property was not a legitimate business, therefore the code was changed to limit the renting of rooms to owner occupied homes and the number of renters changed from four to two. Several hypothetical situations were then discussed, including two unrelated adults with children, and three brothers plus one other unrelated person; both were established as illegal under the code. Boardmember Thede asked if there was an age limitation - if children were considered separate entities under the code. Mr. Barnes stated that there was no age limitation and that children were included. Boardmember Lieser stated that in effect, there were three situations that could be considered "family" under the code and the situation under consideration clearly did not fall under any of them. A combination of the three situations did not constitute a family under the code. Mr. Beardslee stated that he felt clarification needed to be made by City Attorney. City Attorney, Steve Roy stated that the Board was called upon to review the City Staff's interpretation of the code and not to redefine the terms of the code. Mr. Beardslee reiterated that he felt that reinterpretation was appropriate because this was a precedent setting situation. Mr. Roy then read section 118-20 (A) of the zoning code defining the duties and powers of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Boardmember Walker then stated that the Board would not redefine terms of the code.- that was the job of City Council. Mr. Barnes stated that the sons are not the owners of the home, the parents are. He stated further that in this type of situation, the parents sometimes sign a quit claim deed over to the children who then can apply for a home occupation license to rent rooms. This would make the current living situation legal. NOVEMBER ZBA MINA Page 5 No one else spoke in favor of the appeal. Three adjacent property owners then spoke in opposition to the appeal. Ms. Andrea Vyvial of 1933 Larkspur referred to a petition dated September 7, 1985, signed by approximately 15 adjacent property owners, stating that the owners were opposed to any variance and "felt that if a variance was granted it would set a trend and would have a detrimental effect on our family neighborhood lifestyle." Mr. Barnes read the petition to the Board. Ms. Vyvial further stated that this was clearly a case of misrepresentation on the part of the realtor. The previous owner had converted the house into an illegal duplex, and had been turned in on numerous occasions for zoning violations. Finally the owner was fined $50 and was required to remove the kitchen in the basement. Ms. Vivial felt that the property had been sold because of this and was surprised that the realtor had not informed the new owners of the zoning. Ms. Jane Baird of 1936 Larkspur stated that she lived next door to the petitioners and that parking was a problem even with only three persons living there; she often had problems with them blocking her driveway. Ms. Baird further stated that she felt that the hardship was self imposed because any informed buyer would check into the zoning before purchasing a property. Mr. Floyd Bloeser of 1932 Larkspur stated that he has lived in his home for 14 years and that zoning code violation was an on -going problem in his neighborhood. He further stated he was opposed to any variance because parties caused problems with parking, traffic, and litter. Ignorance of the zoning restrictions was no excuse because the petitioners received a copy of the neighborhood covenants just like everybody else. Boardmember Thede asked if the basic problem was the RL zoning. Mr. Barnes replied that regardless of the zoning, only one family was allowed per dwelling unit and the appeal dealt solely with the interpretation of what constitutes a family. Mr. Barnes further stated that the petitioner had the right to appeal the Board's decision to City Council or to exercise other options. Boardmember Walker made a motion that the Board uphold Staffs decision that two related and two unrelated people did not constitute a family under the code and to confirm that four unrelated people cannot legally live together under the code. Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Lawton. Nays: Dodder. Appeal No. 1695 Section 118-95 (D) by Alan Hauser, 1515 West Elizabeth - Approved with condition. ---The variance would allow 2 freestanding signs on one piece of property which has frontage on only one street. Specifically, the variance would allow a 31 square foot, single face menu board sign for a drive-in restaurant in addition to the restaurant's main I.D. sign. NOVEMBER ZBA MIN* Page 6 ---Hardship pleaded: In order for the efficiently through the drive -up lane, located away from the building, thus it There will be landscaping around the sign street. traffic circulation to flow the menu board sign must be has to be a freestanding sign. to provide screening from the ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that there be sufficient landscaping to screen the menu board from the street. Two notices were returned. No letters were received. Boardmember Walker was concerned that both signs were up front by the street. Mr. Barnes stated that for that reason staff requested that sufficent landscaping be installed to screen the menu -board sign from view from the street. Alan Hauser, of Architecture I, Loveland, Colorado, spoke in favor of the variance, pointing out that because of the size of the lot the menu sign needed to be placed near the street to facilitate the circulation of traffic. Mr. Houser then left the podium to show the pattern of circulation to the board on the plans. After discussion of the size and location of the landscaping, Boardmember Dodder made the motion to approve the variance on the condition that sufficient landscaping be installed to screen the menu sign from the steet. Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Thede, Lieser, Dodder. Nays: None. At this point in the meeting Boardmembers Walker and Dodder left. Boardmember Leis became a voting member. Appeal No. 1696. Section 118-96 (B) by Charles Bacorn, 113 Linden - approved with condition. ---The variance would allow a sign to project eight feet into the right-of-way. Specifically, the sign is 12 square feet, and would be attached to a rail which encloses a stairway which comes out 8 feet from the wall of the building. ---Hardship pleaded: The sign is not a typical projecting wall sign in that it is not perpendicular to the building, and .it is not several feet above the ground. The business will be located in the basement of the Avery Building, so the most logical place to put a sign is on the rail around the stairway. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the sign also be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Two notices werd returned. No letters were received. NOVEMBER ZBA MINdW • Page 7 Petitioner, Charles Bacorn of 140 N. Sherwood spoke in favor of the variance, stating that the iron stairway would block the view of any sign posted outside the building against the wall, therefore he would like to post a sign directly on the iron railing. He acknowledged that he would need to get approval from the LPC for any sign and stated that the actual proposal before the LPC at present time was only 3 square feet in size. No one spoke against the variance. Boardmember Thede made a motion that the variance be approved on the condition that the sign also meet Landmark Preservation Commission approval. Boardmember Leis seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Leis, Thede, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1697. Section 118-43 (B), 118-43 (C) by Bo Brown for Conine Co., 410 N. Loomis - approved with condition. ---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 4900 square feet, and the lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is an existing lot, platted with only 35 feet of width and 4900 square feet of area. No additional land is available to buy and nothing can be built without a variance. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the house comply with all required setbacks. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Petitioner Bo Brown of the Conine Company spoke in favor of the variance, stating that his firm was designing a starter home, about 940 square feet, to fit the smaller lot. The design was planned to be in character with the existing neighborhood. Since there is no other land to buy, a variance is needed to build on this lot. Mr. Lawton inquired if the parking would be off the alley. Mr Brown replied that the parking area had not been finalized yet. Mr. Barnes replied that one off-street parking place would be required. Boardmember Thede made a motion that the variance be granted with the condition that all setback requirements be met. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Leis, Thede, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1698. Section 118-95 (C) (4) by Steve Lind for Gardner Signs , 111 W. Prospect - approved with condition. ---The variance would allow a freestanding sign to be located 5 feet from an interior side lot line instead of the required 15 feet. The sign would be a 52.64 square foot per face freestanding sign to identify, the Prospector Shops and it would replace the existing sign. NOVEMBER ZBA MIN& Page 8 • ---Hardship pleaded: If the sign were located the required l5 feet from the east lot line, the sign would be in the driveway area and would be a hazard. Also, the property to the east was granted a variance in 1984 to increase their allowance, and it was granted with the condition that they could not have a freestanding sign on Prospect, thus the intent of the code to ensure separation between signs is met since there can't be another sign on the adjacent property. Staff recommendation: Approval for the hardship stated. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, reviewed the appeal. Petitioner Steve Lind of Gardner Signs spoke in favor of the variance stating that there was no other location for a freestanding sign because of the location of the driveway. Boardmember Thede asked Mr. Lind to point out the size and location of the new sign in comparison to the old one and also requested a description of the sign. Mr. Lind stated that the sign would be considerably shorter than the current sign and would be executed in brown tones with ivory lettering. Also, the owners planned to install landscaping around the sign although it was not required. Boardmember Leis expressed concern that the proposed sign and landscaping be in character with those on adjacent properties. Ms. Diane Blake, part owner of the properties, spoke in favor of the variance, stating that she would be in favor of landscaping that was consistent with existing landscaping on adjacent properties. Boardmember Leis made a motion that the variance be granted with the condition that the sign resemble the drawing submitted by Gardner Signs and that the landscaping be compatible with existing landscaping on the property to the east. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Leis, Thede, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1699. Section 118-41 (D), 118-41 (E) by Carl Currillo for Tull Construction, 3400 Justice Court - Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 15.5 feet and the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 7 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RLP zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The house is pre -sold. The only way to make this house fit on the lot would be to turn it so that the front of the house faces north, which is something the buyer doesn't want. The house as proposed does meet all the setbacks if the front lot line was considered to be the west lot line. ---Staff recommendation: Denial. While the house as layed out does not present a detriment to the neighborhood, the hardship is self imposed. The adjacent lot to the south is still undeveloped, and under the NOVEMBER ZBA MINIS Page 9 • ownership of the petitioner. It is possible to deed some land from that lot to this one in order to meet the setbacks. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal. Mr. Barnes stated that the definition of "front lot line", as set forth in Section 118-11 of the code to be "the property line dividing a lot from a street. On a corner lot only one (1) street line shall be considered as a front line, and the shorter street frontage shall be considered the front line." Mr. Doug Larson, contractor, spoke in favor of the variance on behalf of the petitioner, stating that the house was pre -sold and that the owners did not want to have the house facing north. Mr. Larson stated that two possible addresses were given for the corner lot. Mr. Barnes said that two addresses gave the owners the option of facing the house either way, but the setbacks still needed to be met. At this point Mr. Larson left the podium to show the plans to the Board. After much discussion, Boardmember Thede stated that the hardship was self-imposed because there was land on an adjoining lot that could be deeded to the property in question; also, changes could be made in the plans to make the house fit on the existing lot -- there were several options. Mr. Larson stated that he was unsure of the options and that is why he came before the Board. Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the appeal because the hardship was self-imposed and that there were other options. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Leis, Thede, Lieser. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb 4P C\A-k ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA October 21, 1985 3:00 P.M. Council Chambers 1. Roll Call. 2. Appeal #1671. Reduce the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet and the minimum side yard setback from 7 feet to 0 feet for a fraternity house in the RH zone. Section 118-44(C) by David Farr, 321 S. Sherwood.