HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/09/1998ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
April 9, 1998
Council Liaison: Ann Azari
Chairperson: Diane Shannon
8:30am
Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes
223-6973(h)
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 9, 1998, in
the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were
present: Gustafson, Stockover, Shannon, Keating, Breth
Absent: Sibbald, Lieser
Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Karen Bross, Building & Zoning Admin. Support
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon.
The minutes from the March 1998 meeting were approved.
Anneal 2213, 1305 W. Elizabeth St Petitioner: P ASigns, Zone• CC ov d.
Sections: 3.8.7 (G)(2)
--- The variance would allow a freestanding sign to be located closer than 15' to an interior
side lot line. Specifically, the variance would allow a new "car wash" sign cabinet to be
placed on the existing sign pole on which the current or previous sign was located,
without having to move the pole further east. The sign will be 3' from the west lot line
instead of the required 15'.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A similar variance for this property was approved in
1978. The layout of the driveways on this property is such that the placement of a
freestanding sign at the required setback would create a hazard and impede.vehicular
circulation. The existing landscaping along the street would make the sign hard to see if
relocated to the street frontage.
--- Staff comments: None.
ZBA
April 9, 1998
Page 2
Barnes began by explaining sign code provisions relative to this variance request. One
requirement is that no freestanding sign can be located within 15' of an interior side lot line. This
is to ensure some separation of signs on adjacent properties. In this instance, a car wash wants to
put up a new sign in an existing location. The car wash also shares the same driveway access
with another business. Barnes pointed out the pole which is proposed to support the sign. In
1978, a variance was granted by ZBA to allow the pole to be within 15' of the side lot line.
Barnes believes there is an opportunity to move the pole to support the sign several feet to the
east without creating an obstruction. Should it be moved the required 15' feet, it would be in a
stacking lane and impede circulation.
BOARD QUESTIONS:
Board member Breth asked if the pole was right on the property line. Barnes explained that the
application states that it is 3' feet from the property line.
Applicant, Andrea Agnew, Owner and Steven Pink, P.A. Signs, spoke to the board about
concerns centering around two hardships: 1). The landscaping blocks visibility of a sign if it were
placed further into the interior of the property, and the large trees are difficult to work with.
2). The other option would place the sign inside the drive area impeding traffic circulation.
Leaving the southern sign pole where it is would offer the best placement for the new sign. The
northern pole would be removed. All other aspects of the sign code according to the applicant,
would be met. Setback requirements would also be met by reducing the height of the pole by one
foot.
The applicant stressed the need for the business to have visibility because of obstructions caused
by landscaping and the adjacent building, and asked the Board to consider this when making their
decision.
Shannon asked for clarification from Barnes regarding the possibility of the sign being moved,
and how that would effect visibility. Barnes explained that he thought the applicant intended to
work with the northern .pole, which would be okay to move slightly.
Moving the southerly pole which the applicant intends to use, is not feasible as it is more within
the traffic circulation pattern. The applicant explained that they intend to use the southerly pole to
ensure compliance with setback requirements.
Stockover asked if there would be any additional landscaping requirements between the two
pieces of property. Barnes explained that if Campus West Theater was to redevelop, compliance
with land use standards would be required, but the applicant would not be subjected to additional
landscaping requirements on the car wash lot. Barnes noted that the variance could be approved
by the Board on the condition of landscaping around the sign.
ZBA
April 9, 1998
Page 3
Breth inquired about the setback requirements. Barnes explained the northern pole is 15' from the
property line with a 3' '/2 sign projection beyond that, making it an I % setback from the
property line.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Keating stated that there is a hardship, and that a similar variance had been granted before.
Gustafson stated that there is no way to comply with setbacks without putting the sign in the
middle of the driveway. Shannon agreed.
Gustafson made a motion to approve Appeal # 2213 to allow the variance for a freestanding sign
within the 15' interior side lot line due to the hardships stated, the narrowness of the lot and
placement of the existing building.
Keating seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Gustafson, Stockover, Shannon, Breth, Keating
Nays: None
Anneal 2214 320 N. College Ave Petitioner: Wayne K. Schrader. owner, Zone T
Approved. Sections: 2.9 & 4.9 (B)(1)(b)
--- Petitioner requests a variance as provided for by division 2.9 to allow installation of
a permanent structure (car wash) to be used in conjunction with the use of the property at
the time the property was placed in the district. This variance is provided for by division
4.9(B)(1)(b) for properties within the T zoning district. The only way to allow the
construction of a building in the T district after the property has been placed in the
district, is to request a variance from the ZBA.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter.
--- Staff comments: In addition to determining a hardship, the board must also find that the
granting of any variance will not create a substantial detriment to the public good and will
not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Code. This is the first time that the
Board has been asked to grant a variance in the T district. Staff will make a presentation
explaining the requirements of the T district.
Board members Gustasfson and Stockover excused themselves due to a conflict of interest.
ZBA
April 10, 1998
Page 4
Barnes began by explaining T (Transition) district requirements for building a new permanent
structure. This zoning designation historically is placed on annexed, undeveloped properties
usually with considerable acreage. Owners may not have had future plans for their property at
the time the property was annexed. To meet state law on zoning requirements, the T district was
used to allow properties to be placed in a district until owners had plans for development, etc.
The only permitted uses of the property are those existing at the time the property was placed in
the district. Barnes explained that City Council can grant variances at the time the applicant
requests T zoning designation, permitting the expansion of any existing use or the installation or
enlargement of a permanent structure to be used in connection with the property at the time of
such zoning. After placement in the district, the ZBA may grant a variance in accordance to 2.9
(the hardship section of the land use code), and in accordance with the criteria in 4.9.
Barnes stated that the applicant's property was placed in the T district about a year ago when the
entire city was re -zoned and the new land use codes were adopted. Several property owners not
knowing what direction to take, requested and were granted, T district zoning. Historically, this
is not how the T district was intended to be used. These properties, including the applicant's
were not recently annexed, had been in the city a long time and were already developed.
The slide presentation by staff showed the existing building to be refurbish along with a new
facade, and the cafe that is proposed to be demolished to build the car wash. Traffic and stacking
patterns, and ideas for on -site landscaping were pointed out. Barnes stated that he has spoken
with Eric Bracke in the Transportation Department and he indicated that the change in use would
not adversely affect traffic.
The slides also showed the number of different uses occurring on Schrader's property: corporate
offices, bulk plant, warehousing, truck repair facilities. The entire area is within the T district.
BOARD QUESTIONS:
Shannon asked if this property conforms to everything but to the T district provisions. Barnes
stated that if a variance was granted, the applicant would go through the building permit process,
meaning the submittal would have to meet all standards in the code regarding landscaping,
building design, traffic; storm water, etc. Staff has not yet had a formal submittal. Shannon
inquired that if the variance is granted, what is the zoning requirements. Barnes answered that
the applicant would then submit for development review. As far as the setbacks are concerned,
Barnes said the applicant will be in compliance.
Shannon asked for clarification regarding why the Board is hearing a variance instead of going
through the re -zoning process. Barnes explained that once in the T district, to build a new
structure, a variance can be granted by the ZBA under certain conditions, or the applicant can
request a rezoning.
ZBA
April 10, 1998
Page 5
Eckman asked if the landscaping plan was part of the site plan. Barnes said that the applicant
did submit a site plan, but landscaping is not part of that; it is a separate plan. Eckman stated to
the Board that in making their decision, they need to consider the criteria for the T district and
what it allows, and the criteria for division 2.9 which states that a hardship must exist, that there
is no substantial detriment to the public good, and that the intent or purposes of the land use
codes, articles 3 through 4 are not impaired.
Ken Wado of Advanced Planning explained to the Board that in March 1997, the entire city was
re -zoned and during that processs approximately 20-30 properities raised issues with staff s
recommendation for zoning. In order to have the new land use code in place, property owners
were given the choice to accept staff recommedation for zoning or be placed in the T zone.
Some accepted to select the T zone with the feeling that they were in a more "neutral" type of
zoning, not committing to staff nor staff committing to them as to what they wanted to do with
their property.
Brad March appeared before the Board on behalf of Schader Oil and Wayne Schrader. He gave a
presentation on the history of the property that sits in the middle of the river corridor area. As
part of the presentation, materials were submitted to support their appeal, some of which
included a traffic study in regards to the change in use from cafe to car wash, a letter explaining
how the property came to be in the T district, and a petition signed by nearby local businesses
supporting Schrader's plan for a car wash.
March explained that the Burlington Northern railroad track cuts through the property. At one
time this track was proposed to be moved, and, not knowing the impact it would have on his
business, Schrader expressed concern to the city. In 1995, it was thought that property owned by
Burlington Northern would be exchanged out with Schrader's property. The city agreed to allow
Schrader Oil to use the city's existing facilities in an old meat processing plant and when the
track movement was completed, the site would be reconfigured to allow Schrader semi -trucks to
park there. Also, it was thought that a maintenance garage would be reconstructed in another
location on the site. It was anticipated that this project would be completed by the end of 1996.
An environmental issue then delayed the project and the city has not yet been able to obtain
conveyances of the property and Burlington Northern trains still run over Schrader's property.
As of December 1997, the efforts have stalled. March said the problem is that both the city and
Schrader had intended to re -do this site. This site was re -zoned twice; in 1996 it was zoned RC
(River Corridor) which does not allow truck facilities on the property. In 1997, Schrader elected
to have the property re -zoned to the T district in part because of the provision allowing the ZBA
to hear variances based on hardship. March gave a thorough explanation of how the proposal .
complies with the criteria in Section 1.5.5 (A). These criteria are supposed to be complied with
to the Board's satisfaction.
March concluded his presentation to the Board saying that most properties are not subjected to
ZBA
April 10, 1998
Page 6
such a history of issuses. He further stated that this is not a re -development of this site; Schrader
wants to add a car wash in connection with the site, and that surrounding properties would not be
adversely effected.
Keating asked Barnes how the board's decision would impact staff s dealings with the applicant
i.e, would it have a negative or positive impact? Barnes explained that under 4.9, the Board has
been asked to grant a variance to allow the the installation of a permanent structure to be used in
connection with the use of property. The granting of this variance would allow the applicant to
build a car wash. This does not vary any requirements that the applicant is subject to under the
land use codes regarding building and site design standards.
Eckman reiterated the following for the board to consider when making their decision:
Is there an extraodinary, or unusual situation in connection with this property, does a hardship
exist, is there a detriment to the public good if the variance is granted and, would the granting of
the variance impair the intent and purpose of the code.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Breth stated that he recognized the hardship that exists, believes that they are satisfying the
criteria, and, recognizing that the applicant is still subject to the land use code regulations, he
made a motion to approve the appeal.
Shannon seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Shannon, Breth, Keating
Nays: None
Appeal 2215 745 Martinez St Petitioner: tavern & Mary Shunn owners Zone RL,
Tabled. Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(a)
--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60' to 50' in order to allow a
detached, single family dwelling to be constructed on the existing plotted lot.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is in an older subdivision wherein all the lots
were platted with less than 60' of lot width. Without a variance nothing can be built. The
Board has granted variances for other lots in this subdivision.
--- Staff comments: None.
•
to
ZBA
April 10, 1998
Page 7
Barnes recommended to the Board that this appeal be tabled. The property lies within the Alta
Vista subdivison, which is in a flood way, and FEMA regulations do not allow structures to be
built; fences, sheds, anything of that nature. The applicant can go through an appeal process to
seek relief from the FEMA regulations by way of the city's Water Board. The next meeting of
the Water Board will not be for another month. The outcome of that meeting will determine if
the ZBA will hear this variance.
A motion was made by Keating to table this variance. Breth seconded this motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Shannon, Breth, Keating, Stockover, Gustafson
Nays: None
Other Business: Item #1
Barnes explained that today the Board will consider a request for a rehearing of Appeal #2211.
This appeal was denied by the Board on March 12, 1998. The ZBA bylaws (Article IV, Section
11) allow the Board to consider a request for a rehearing of an appeal that has been denied,
provided that the applicant shall submit new evidence that could not be presented at the original
hearing on the matter. Specifically, the applicant is requesting that the board approve a motion to
rehear his appeal to allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building at 3024 W.
Prospect, with 2 non-resident co-workers instead of the one that is allowed. (Minutes of the
March meeting are included in Board member's packets). Barnes stated that if the Board
approves the rehearing request, the actual rehearing will be scheduled for the May ZBA meeting.
The only action the Board will be considering on April 9, 1998 will be to decide whether or not
to allow the rehearing, not whether or not to grant or deny Appeal #2211.
(Note: The Board does not hear such requests very often, but generally the Board will give the
applicant an opportunity to be heard again. Actual consideration of whether or not any new
evidence is persuasive enough to change votes is reserved for the rehearing, not for the re uest
for rehearing)
Keating pointed out that two of the Board members present today were not present at the March
12th meeting. Eckman explained that the request for the rehearing must be and has been made
by the applicant. Boards members not present at the March 12th meeting can participate in this
request for a rehearing.
Barnes explained that he also was not present at the meeting, but from listening to the meeting
tapes, he didn't believe Board members were given the opportunity to make any other motions.
The variance request of the appeal was two part: 1). To allow 2 employees, and 2) to allow an
addition to be made and to have it in a detached building. The motion was made to grant
ZBA
April 10, 1998
Page 8
everything, and that motion was denied. Barnes feels the Board concluded this item without the
opportunity for additional input from other members to perhaps grant part of the appeal, or make
other motions. Barnes asked Board members to consider this when Brad March makes his
presentation for the applicant's request for a rehearing.
Brad March, representing Mr. Spengler, stated that there are concerns regarding the Board's
decision last month and the impact this decision has had on his business. March supplied to the
board affidavits from neighbors stating no objection to Spengler's business, as well as a letter
written in 1976 from the City Attorney's office to Judge Kotchenberger indicating the the city
presumed that a business coming into the city was a non-comforming business, and had met all
zoning requirements and should be treated as a non -conforming business. Based on the letter and
the affidavits supplied, March suggested that there is not a basis to consider that Spengler's
business was not in non -conforming use. Neighbors have indicated in affidavits that they see no
additional impact from traffic. There has been some sort of business at the currrent location since
the 70's.
As far as new evidence is concerned, March said Spengler didn't understand all that was needed
for the hearing, and perhaps didn't understand the system and the impact a denial would have on
his business..
Shannon stated that she was not aware of the impact and asked for clarification regarding
shutting down the business. Barnes explained the applicant needs the variance in order to obtain
a home occupation license, and to occupy the portion of the detached building that is there now.
Since the whole variance was denied, Barnes explained that the applicant should not be allowed
to operate his business at all.
Keating made a motion to grant the request for a rehearing. Breth seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Shannon, Breth, Keating, Stockover, Gustafson
Nays: None
Other Business: Item #2
Barnes stated that there is a proposed change to the code that deals with the section regarding
appeals from administrative decisions. The proposed ordinance will affect ZBA, in that the
proposal will clarify what board will hear appeals from administrative decisions, and what
decisions qualify as appealable. The first reading goes before City Council May 5th and Barnes
asked the ZBA to review the proposal and note any concerns since the appeals from these types
of decisions will go to the ZBA. Bames briefly explained the change. Board members had no
questions regarding the proposal.
Meeting was adjouned at 10:35 a.m.
Diane Shannon, Chairperson
I_�2Jc3t v�>`
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator