Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/12/1987• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting - November 12, 1987 Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held Thursday, November 12, 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 (alter- nate), Walker, Lawton, Barnett and Lancaster. Boardmember Thede arrived after the first appeal was presented and voted on, thereby casting her vote on the remaining items on the agenda. Boardmembers absent: Nelson (alternate). Staff present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 8, 1987 - Approved as Published. The minutes of the October 8, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1848 Section 29-178 (2), by Jeff Lebesch, owner, 129 Frey Avenue -Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 58 feet for a new single family home in the RM zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot was platted with only 58 feet of lot width. Nothing can be built without a variance." ---Staff comments: None. Zoning Administrator Barnes spoke regarding the variance. This a very sim- ilar variance that the Board has heard from time to time where a lot was platted before the code required 60 feet of lot width. Jeff Lebesch appeared for the variance stating that he had immediate plans to build on this lot. He owns the adjoining lot to this property, but this is a situation where part of the lot cannot be borrowed and then added to the lot that the variance is for. Boardmember Walker commented that this issue is fairly straight forward and that the hardship is certainly something that the Board deals with all the time; a motion was made by Boardmember Walker to approve the appeal for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Barnett. Yeas: Coleman, Walker, Lawton, Barnett and Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal #1849 Section 29-493 (1), by J.D. and Harry Murphy, owners, 1500 E. Riverside - Tabled. ---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 for Healthworks located 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 railroad, there is no aesthetic value to landscaping this area; the petitioner 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. The petitioner failed to appear before the Board. After some discussion, the Board decided that since they had several questions to ask the peti- tioner, the matter should be tabled. Boardmember Walker made a motion to table this appeal until the December 10, 1987 meeting. 'Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lawton, Barnett, Lancaster and Thede. Nays: None. Appeal #1850 Section 29-595 (a), by Mark Casey of N C Properties, contrac- tor, 2619 Midpoint Drive - Approved. ---The variance would allow a 25 square foot single face ground sign, which is within 50 feet of an intersection of a street with a driveway, to be setback 10 feet instead of the required 15 feet. The sign adver- tises office buildings in the River Center 30 project in the IG zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addi- tion, the sign is parallel to the street rather than perpendicular, and is setback 21 feet from the curb, so it really isn't an obstruction of traffic visibility." ---Staff comments: None. Zoning Administrator Barnes spoke regarding the variance; the sign in ques- tion is an existing directory sign without exterior lighting. A permit was issued with the sign proposal which met all of the code requirements. When the Zoning Inspector went out to inspect the sign, it was discovered that the sign was only 10 feet from the right-of-way line instead of the required 15 feet. The sign contractor was then notified of the non- compliance. J Mark Casey appeared for the variance stating that the company that he rep- resents has worked at length with tenants of the building to come up with tasteful signage for this project. He feels that traffic safety is not an issue because of the width of the street, and there are no obstructions of site distance. Boardmember Walker wondered how this obvious problem happened. Zoning Administrator Barnes explained to the Board that the permit application indicated the correct setback, but that the contractor assumed that the right-of-way line was closer to the street than it actually was. Boardmem- ber Walker concluded that the petitioner must have felt that he was covered for the permit that was issued for the sign. He added that one thing about this sign that might be acceptable is that it does run parallel to the street, if it were situated differently it would create quite a visual bar- rier. Boardmember Coleman questioned the wisdom of placing a directory sign, that requires time to read, this close to the entrance of the pro- ject. Boardmember Barnett felt that a hardship does exist; if the sign is set back an additional 5 feet, it would set the sign on the curb at the edge of the parking lot, which would make the last parking stall less usable. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to grant this variance for this particular sign at this orientation. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Barnett, Lancaster and Thede. Nays: Walker. Appeal #1851 Section 29-133 (2), by Larry Michaud for Neighbor to Neigh- bor, owner, 732 Martinez Street - approved. ---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is an older lot which was platted with only 50 feet of lot width. Nothing can be built without a variance. A new house will be built on the lot." ---Staff comments: This is a typical Neighbor to Neighbor infill project. Larry Michaud appeared for the variance; an applicant has been approved for permanent financing who is interested in the plan that has been devised for this lot. The area will be cleaned up and will be a vast improvement to what presently exists. All hurdles for the application process have been cleared, except for the most vital, which is to be allowed to proceed. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated, with the remark that this program is to be commended for the won- derful work that Neighbor to Neighbor and Larry Michaud has done. Board - member Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lawton, Barnett, Lancas- ter and Thede. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Dave Lawton, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator