Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/10/19870 i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting - December 10, 1987 Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held Thursday, December 10, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Coleman, Thede, Nelson, Lawton, Walker and Lancaster. Boardmember Barnett arrived after roll call, but cast his vote on all of the agenda items presented. Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 12, 1987 - Approved as Published. Appeal #1849 Section 29-493 (1), by J.D. and Harry Lee Murphy, owners, 1500 E. Riverside - Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required parking lot landscape setback along the north lot line adjacent to the railroad from 5 feet to 0 feet for a parking lot expansion in the IG zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property backs up to the rail- road. Since the parking lot will be expanded up to the north lot line, the 5 foot setback is required. However, since the rear abuts the rail- road, there is no aesthetic value to landscaping this area; the peti- tioner would rather spend the money in landscaping along the street. This parking lot will also become a shared parking lot with the funeral home next door. The funeral home was granted this same variance in July, 1985." ---Staff comments: The funeral home mentioned above is only one of a num- ber of properties to have received variances from the setback require- ment as a result of abutting railroad tracks. A retail/office complex on South Mason received a variance in 1984, and a City parking lot also received a similar variance in 1983. The ZBA has been of the opinion that railroad tracks act as a built-in buffer and are,a unique circum- stance of the lot which satisfies the intent of the ordinance. This variance was tabled from last months meeting because the petitioner failed to appear and the Board had several questions to ask him. J.D. Murphy spoke in favor of the variance. He explained that he has already paved the lot due to upcoming inclement weather and said if the variance is denied the asphalt would be removed from the required area. It it also his intention to keep the back area of the lot to the railroad mowed and intends to landscape the required area along the street. This lot is to be used for over -flow parking during the peak hours of his business. Boardmembers made the point that the lot should not have been paved while the variance was pending; all felt that the City should have been notified. Boardmember Thede commented that this is a definite improvement over what ` a ZBA Minutes December 10, 1987 Page 2 presently exists and that the Board in the past has deemed railroad tracks to be a hardship. Also, consideration has been taken in the past regarding the parking issue for athletic clubs in various locations in the city. Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship stated. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Barnett. Nays: None. Appeal #1853 Section 29-133 (4), by Pat Walberg, owner, 200 Allen Street -Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback for a two -car garage addition to a residence in the RL zone from 15 feet to 7 feet. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The original garage was converted to a family room a number of years ago. The owner desires to build a garage in order to house a personal vehicle and an older, restored con- vertible. The house has a front entrance on Harvard and the lot is a corner lot, so the rear lot line really functions as a side lot line, which only requires a 5 foot setback. ---Staff comments: None. Pat Walberg appeared for the variance stating that at the time of the con- version of the garage to a family room, plans were made to add a garage in the future. It is proposed to build a two -car garage with a roof line that will match the existing one. A 20' driveway will be installed to access the garage. The garage is to have 2 doors with one door larger than the other (it was determined that the larger door is for better access to the petitioner's personal car.) Boardmembers agreed that this situation has been delt with before; the corner lot causes a unique circumstance. The plans submitted are well drawn and all of the Boardmembers had no problem with this variance other than noting that the larger door should not be considered as a hardship because it is self-imposed. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lan- caster and Barnett. Nays: None. Appeal #1854 Section 29-595 (d), by Roger Beaner, owner, 815 E. Mulberry -Approved with conditions. ---The variance would allow a 21 square foot freestanding sign to be located within 15 feet of an interior side lot line. Specifically, the variance would allow a sign for Choice Auto Body to be located approxi- mately 2 inches from the east lot line. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is narrow, and due to the location of the curb cut and parking lot, and because of the nature of the business, the only place to put the sign so it doesn't get backed into is along the lot line. The sign will be about 60 feet from the "Carpet Mart" sign located on the adjacent lot." --Staff comments: None. ZBA Minutes December 10, 1987 Page 3 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes spoke regarding the variance. He stated that the 50' lot is asphalted from lot line to lot line with a curb cut on the west that takes up half of the lot footage. Roger Beaner appeared for the variance stating that originally a sign was located on the west side of the lot and that it was constantly being backed into. He proposes to construct a 3'x7' sign that will be located on the east side of the lot. Boardmembers Walker and Barnett were concerned that a buffer area was not proposed. They felt that changing the sign from one side to the other is trading the situation from this parking lot to the business to the east, namely Carpet Mart. Boardmember Thede commented that the Carpet Mart would not be able to put a sign in the same location without the Board being aware of it, and that the new sign being placed is unlikely to be damaged by traffic moving forward vs. traffic backing —up. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes noted that although it is a remote possibility that the Carpet Mart might move their existing sign, they could however change the location of the present sign to this location. He suggested that if the variance is approved that it be approved with conditions to allow for this situation. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that if in the future Carpet Mart elects to place a sign within 30' of this sign the variance become null and void and the petitioner would need to reapply for a variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. Yeas: Thede, Walker, and Lancaster. Nays: Law— ton and Barnett. Appeal #1855 Section 29-133 (1),(4), by Bud Frick, architect, 121 E. Lake — Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet, and would reduce the required 2.09—to-1 lot area to floor area ratio requirement to 1.4—to-1, for a 4,037 sq. ft. addition to a building containing a non —conforming use in the RL zone; specifically, a fraternity. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: Poudre Fire Authority has condemned the building, and rather than rebuild with the existing problems and limitations within the house, the desire is to make the house more functional by adding additional dining space, living space, study areas, kitchen facilities, etc.. There is no additional land available to buy. ---Staff comments: This fraternity is a nonconforming use. The RL zone normally requires a 3—to-1 lot area/floor area ratio, but since this building is existing with a 2.09—to-1 ratio, the variance is deceiving. The hardship is somewhat self—imposed since the fraternity is wanting to add on to the building, rather than restore the existing building to a safe condition. This is the first step in the review process for an enlargement of a nonconforming use. If the variance is approved, then the P 5 7. Board will hold a public meeting to discuss the size of the addition, the J ZBA Minutes December 10, 1987 Page 4 impact of the addition on the surrounding properties, etc.. Staff read the attached letter submitted by Doug Anderson-1511 Reming- ton; the letter is unfavorable to the variance. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the Board that according to Steve Miller of the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) the reasons for condemning the building is not because of structural problems, but more of a life safety issue. Bud Frick appeared for the variance stating that the fraternity is in des- perate need of repair and instead of just remodeling, the proposal is to also improve the building by enlarging living areas. This thorough remo- deling includes solving the problems addressed by PFA along with meeting National Fraternity standards for room sizes. The current occupancy is 58; if room additions are not made it will reduce the occupancy to 54, there- fore it was determined that if the variance was approved and the expansion was built the occupancy would be brought back up to 58 along with better study and living areas. After candid discussion between the Board and Mr. Frick, it was also determined that if the variance was denied an expansion to the basement and the remodeling needed to comply with PFA might be done anyway. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained to the Board that a basement doesn't constitute floor space and the expansion could be done without a variance. Mr. Frick told the Board that if the variance is approved, plans are immediate to apply for funding. It was suggested by Boardmember Coleman to separate these plans into 2 phases: Phase I - satisfy Poudre Fire Authority's concerns. Phase II - obtain P&Z approval thru the neighborhood meeting process for the proposed expansion. Boardmember Coleman felt this was a step in the right direction and a good way to bring this building, that is in complete disarray, up to code. He also noted that the proposed expansion is above and beyond what it would take to satisfy the reasons for PFA's condemnation. Winifred Johnson of 410 E. Lake spoke against the variance stating her con- cern for the lack of supervision for the occupants of the fraternity. She questioned if the fraternity currently complies with zoning codes and also brought up the critical parking problem, it was noted that 28-30 parking spaces are allotted to the 58 residents. Dr. Rumley of 1513 Remington also spoke against the variance. He stated that the pictures shown at the meeting were taken at an opportune time, especially the photograph of the alley; normally it's completely obstructed by trash, lumber and vehicles. This raises concern over access of fire and emergency equipment for both this building as well as the neighboring resi- dences. Ed Hildenberg of 213 E. Lake also spoke against the variance. His concern is the impact that an expansion will have on the already over -burdened 4" sewer line. Currently the City's Sewage department is called by neighbor- hood residents twice yearly to clean out the lines. All of the neighbors feel that the fraternity is already an excessive use. All of the Boardmembers felt compelled to deny the variance. Boardmember Nelson questioned the validity of the expansion, he felt it is unwarranted 1 ZBA Minutes December •, 1987 • Page 5 to expand the fraternity to add beds only for 4 more occupants. Boardmem- ber Barnett felt that the Board was being asked to grant the variance for the petitioners desire for more convenient living space, not for the rea- sons of condemnation by the Poudre Fire Authority. Boardmember Thede com- mented that this hardship is self imposed, the Board has set a precedence to deny variances when there is no appropriate hardship. Boardmember Lan- caster had a problem with the variance also; other land is available to buy, making the hardship stated an economical one. Economics has never been a factor to this Board either. Boardmember Walker also feels that the hardship is self-imposed. He also commented on the lack of current regula- tion on fraternities, he added that the result is no effective control on the intensity of use. Boardmember Walker made a motion to deny the vari- ance due to a lack of an appropriate hardship. Boardmember Barnett sec- onded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Barnett. Nays: None. Appeal #1856 Section 29-493 (1), by James Brannan, architect for the owner, 899 Riverside - Approved. --The variance would reduce the required minimum average landscaped park- ing lot setback requirement from 15 feet to 6 feet along Riverside Drive for a portion of a new parking lot for Houska Garage located in the C zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addi- tion, the landscape setback along the east lot line will be increased from 5 feet to 8 feet, and many existing unsafe traffic problems will be resolved." --Staff comments: The proposed improvements will indeed clean up the property and create a safer traffic circulation situation. Staff read the attached letter written by James Brannan to support the variance. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained to the Board that presently the parking area around Houska Garage is dirt and gravel. The petitioner pro- poses an addition to the west of the existing building and will eliminate the curb cut on Riverside and front the area with a new parking area, therefore they are required to comply with the parking code which includes, landscaping, curb cuts and other design elements. The City Engineer is requiring an oversized sidewalk on Riverside to accommodate bike traffic. The parking lot set back is measured from the back of the sidewalk and not the curb, therefore along Riverside the petitioner has approximately 6' of area between the proposed parking and the sidewalk in which to put in landscaping so the variance being requested is to reduce that 15' require- ment down to 6'. They do meet the 10' setback requirement for a parking lot along Myrtle Street. James Brannen appeared for the variance stating that he has been working with all City departments on all various issues to improve the site. Just this morning the traffic engineer surveyed the site and concurred with the proposed suggestions for reorganization of the site. A landscape plan was submitted to the Board for approval; trees and low-lying plantings are fy ZBA Minutes December 10 1987 ` Page 6 Proposed to cover and screen the parking area. The chain link fence that exists will be salvaged and used, possibly with the addition of gates for site security. There is an existing business identification on the site but it is not known at this time if the sign will be changed. Boardmember Barnett commented that this proposal is a dramatic improvement to the site. Boardmember Nelson noted the cooperation that exists by the petitioner in working with the City, partially the hardship is imposed by the City's requirement for the over -sized sidewalk. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Bar- nett seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Bar- nett. Nays: None. Appeal 111857 Section29-591 (6), by Richard Kippers, for the owner, 1700 S. Shields - Tabled. ---The variance would allow a new identification sign for the Northwood Apartments to be located at a location other than at the actual entrance into the project. The new sign would replace an existing one and would be at the corner of Shields and Stuart rather than at the corner of Stuart and Heritage Circle. The sign is three -sided, with two sides being 8 square feet, and the third being 16 square feet. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The actual entrance into the pro- ject is about 250 feet from Shields. Because of the distance involved and the landscaping, a sign at that location would not be visible from Shields. The existing sign is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. Shields and Stuart acts as the actual entrance into the project." --Staff comments: The Board has granted a number of such variance requests in the past. Two recent examples are the Peachtree condos on E. Horsetooth, and the Landmark Apartments, located across the street from the property for which this variance is being requested. The petitioner was not present at the meeting; the Board voted to table this appeal until the January 14, 1988, meeting. Respectfully submitted, Dave Lawton, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator