Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/14/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 14, 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 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 Thede, Szopin- ski, Murphy, Liesere and Dodder. Boardmembers Absent: Walker, Johnson Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Eckman Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 22, 1985, Approved as Published The minutes of the January 22, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1589. Tabled until March 14, 198S regular meeting. Motion was made and seconded by Boardmembers Szopinski and Lieser respectively to approve this request. Appeal #1595. Section 118-91(A), 118-95(A) by Robbin Kerns 505 W. Drake - Approved with conditions "---The variance would allow a home occupation to have an identification sign larger than 2 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow the "China Doll International Hair Runner" hair styling salon to have a 24 square foot ground sign. The variance would also reduce the required setback for a ground sign located within 50 feet of a driveway from 15 feet to 10 feet. ---Hardship pleaded: The business is located on Drake Road, a major arterial street. The traffic goes by at about 35 or 40 m.p.h., so a small sign is hard to read, and clients need to see the sign far enough in advance so they can signal to turn to decrease the possi- bility of a traffic hazard. The owner's wife has passed away, so he is the sole support of his family and needs to build the busi- ness back up, so a larger sign is desirable. The sign is located 20 feet from the curb so the setback is being met. ---Staff recommendation: Denial. A 24 square foot sign is too big for a home occupation. There is some hardship though, since the home is on a major road and a sign somewhat larger than 2 square feet may be justified." Two letters were received. "January 6, 1985 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Office of Building Inspection P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Barnes: I have received a notice of modification of Zoning Code - Appeal No. 1595. This pertains to a sign to be located at 505 W. Drake. Today I talked with a neighbor to 505 W. Drake and was told that the sign was already in place. Since your office has already violated the modifica- tion section of the code, apparently then is nothing I can say. How did your office permit the sign to remain on the property, when no application had been submitted? Pretty bad way of going through your established procedures. I really have no objections to the sign. But can't understand why it was built and installed without going through your office. Yours very truly, Ray W. Heley" "February 11, 1985 Dear Mr. Barnes: In regard to the sign of Robbin Kerns for the "China Doll International Hair Runner" - the large one he had up for a short time did not block the view of the street and was set back far enough from the sidewalk that it didn't bother anyone. We feel he should be allowed to have it since it's on his own property and is not a hinderence to anyone. Clyde and Fern Bauer 509 W. Drake" Petitioner Robbin Kerns explained his reason for wanting a variance He said that safety was a big concern. People need an identification point so that they can slow down for the turn into his driveway. His motor home that is used in his business is now in Greeley and will probably be there for a long time. Boardmember Murphy felt that the sign was too large - possibly too much information on the sign. Boardmember Thede agreed. Boardmember Szopinski said that he had no problems with the sign as long as it didn't exceed 8 to 10 square feet. -2- After discussion Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve a variance for a sign not to exceed 10 square feet. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Thede; Szopinski; M=98hy; Lieser; Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1600. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(E)(1) by Mike Daley for The Neenan Company, 318 Canyon - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required 5 foot parking lot setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet (2.5 feet in one section, 0 feet in another), and along the south lot line adjacent to the motor- cycle space from 5 feet to 2 feet. The variance would also eliminate the requirement to provide a loading zone for an office building in the BG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is an irregular shape, which makes it hard to design a building and parking lot which will meet all of the re- quirements. Everything adjacent to this lot is already existing parking lots and driveways for commercial uses, therefore the landscape buffer setback is not needed. A large loading zone is also not needed since most delivery trucks will be of the UPS size. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The Board approved these same vari- ances at it's April 12, 1984 meeting. The variances have since expired and the petitioner is now reapplying. No notices or letters were received. Petitioner Mike Daley for The Neenan Company said that the variance ap- proved six months ago is the same as the one requested today. The only difference is that Norlarco will be expanding and a master parking lot is being looked into by all concerned. Boardmember Thede felt that if it was approved 6 months ago, it should be approved now and made that motion. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Thede; Szopinski; Murphy; Lieser; and Dodder. Appeal #1601. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by J. Derrick Beneville, 228 N. Shields - Approved with conditions "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 square feet to 7782.5 square feet and the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for an additional single family dwelling on a lot in the RM zone. The vari- ance would also allow the dwelling to have only 298 square feet of floor area instead of the required 800 square feet. ---Hardship pleaded: The building is an existing building which histor- ically was the first dwelling on the lot. It has not been used as a dwelling for a many years and the petitioner would like to restore it and use it as an efficiency dwelling unit. There is no additional land available to buy. -3- ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the building be brought up to building code standards. It appears that there are several lots with similar set-ups in this block so this would not be out of character with the neighborhood." No notices or letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the Board that when he went out to the property to take pictures there appeared to be several houses with the same circumstances, original houses that are small right off the alley. Petitioner J. Derrick Beneville stated that the purpose of getting the variance was to have two detached single family dwellings on one lot. He said that he would hire licensed contractors to do the work so that the dwelling would be to code. Boardmember Thede felt this building would be entirely too small for a dwelling. Mr. Beneville said that it would be an efficiency apartment for one person. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that there be no additions made to the dwelling and that the building be brought up to City codes. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopin- ski. Yeas: Szopinski Dodder, Lieser. Nays: Murphy, Thede. Appeal #1602. Section 118-82(D) by Ron Gomer for Anderson Investments, 2551 Hampshire Rd. - Approved "---The variance would allow a new child care center in the RP zone to have 97 children instead of the allowed 92 children. The code requires 40 square feet of indoor floor area per child, and since there is only 3680 square feet all that would be allowed is 92 children. The building would need to have 3880 square feet for 97 children. ---Hardship pleaded: The developer made an error in calculating how many children would be allowed in this size building, however, the P.U.D. was approved for 97 children, so the variance would not allow more children than the City has already approved. The State requirements are only 35 square feet per child, so under State regulations approxi- mately 105 children would be allowed in this size building. ---Staff recommendation; Approval. The hardship is self-imposed, but since the City has already approved the site for 97 children and the play area is more than adequate for the that number, there should be no negative impact." There were no notices or letters received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reiterated the applicants hardship. -4- • is Petitioner Ron Gomer said that he builds th Anderson Investments. They are then leased by World needs to have at least 97 children occupy cancel their contract for this building. e child care buildings for Childrens World. Childrens the building or they might Colleen, a representative from Children's World, 6868 S. Revere Parkway, told the Board that this is the same building that has gone up all over Colorado. All of the buildings are set up for 97 children which complies with State laws. There has never been a problem with overpopulating. The difference seems to be in the way different agencies calculate square footage. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Thede, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, and Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1603. Section 118-95(C) by Terry Jones for European Tanning Salon, 2107 S. College Ave - Approved "---The variance would allow a 65 square foot per face free-standing sign to be set back 20 feet from the right-of-way line instead of the required 22.5 feet. ---Hardship pleaded: The petitioner's business is in a building which does not have frontage on a street. There is an existing freestanding sign on the property just east of the petitioner's building. This sign has a 2' x 8' gap in it's existing design which the petitioner proposes to fill in with a sign for his business. This addition will not increase the height of the sign. ---Staff recommendation: this business is in street" One letter was received. "City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO 80521 February 5 6, 1985 Dear Board Members, Approval. There is a legitimate hardship since building located several hundred feet from the This letter is in reference to Mr. Terrence Jones request to put a sign for his business, European Tanning Salon, out on my freestanding sign. He would like to fill in the space between my "Mountain States Electronics" sign on top and "Taylor Rental" sign below. He has my permission to use that area. I would like his sign to be the same width as the existing signs which is approximately eight feet wide. Sincerely, Don Delitz" -5- Boardmember Dodder didn't like the idea of creating a tenant sign. Board - member Szopinski felt the same way and didn't want to set a precedence. Their concern was regarding University Mall needing variances on signs. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said there should be no problem with setting a precedence. Their cases are nothing a like. Boardmember Murphy said that if they would make the sign smaller they wouldn't even need a variance and he thought aesthetics was an important thing to keep in mind. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Dodder, Lieser, Murphy. Nays: Thede, Szopinski. Appeal #1604. Section 118-44(B), 118-44(C), 118-44(0) by Mike Keefe, 614 Remington St. - Approved with conditions "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet, reduce the required lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet, and reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 12.3 feet for an office use in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The house and lot are existing and there is no additional land available to buy. The building is currently a student rental and the petitioner desires to convert it to his appraisal office. The use is low intensity and will not generate much additional traffic into the neighborhood. The parking requirements are being met. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighborhood." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Mike Keefe re -enforced the fact that people would not be coming to the property. His business generally takes him to their property. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the property is for this use only. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1605. Section 118-91(F) by Rick Brown for WJM Associates,1050 Hobbit - ADDroved "---The variance would allow a permanent housing project sign to be located along Shields Street at a location other than the entrance into the housing project. ---Hardship pleaded: The entrances into the project are off of Hobbit Street, which is a minor street. Signs at those entrances would not provide adequate identification. The sign is only 18 square feet per face instead of the maximum allowable 35 square feet so it is a fairly small sign. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The Board denied sign variances for this project last month and offered constructive suggestions to the petitioner. This proposal appears to have adequately addressed the concerns of the Board. One letter was received. "Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Office of Building Inspection City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 300 W. Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 11 February 198S RE: Appeal 1605 - Sign Variance Request - Rick Brown for WJM Architects Dear Mr. Barnes: The EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PROSPECT -SHIELDS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION has seen the proposed design and location for the signs for the landmark. The appeal (1605) is an acceptable improvement and the proposal will satisfy the landmark's need for identification, direction, and location without compromising compatibility with the neighborhood. I thank the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals for allowing me to present the concerns of the neighborhood when the original appeal (1593) appeared before them. The hard's sensitivity to what is "appropriate" for a residential neighborhood is appreciated. We trust that signs for the other developments in the neighborhood will be planned for compatibility with the residential character of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Freeman M. Smith Executive Committee Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association 1000 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526" -7- Boardmember Dodder abstained due to a conflict of interest. Boardmember Szopinski felt that the proposal was much more acceptable than the last and made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Thede, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal #1606. 1113 W. Olive - Tabled to the March 14, 1985 meeting. Appeal #1607. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)[1] by Jerry Curtis, 310 W. Prospect - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot parking lot setback along Prospect Road to 5 feet, eliminate the required 5 foot setback along the west lot line, and eliminate the requirement to screen the parking lot along the west line with a 6 foot fence. These variances are requested for a restaurant in the BL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: There is a ditch along the west lot line which is covered with concrete. The concrete can't be removed to provide the required 5 foot landscape buffer. The parking lot abutts an existing parking lot on the property to the west so it is not practical to construct a 6 foot fence to screen one parking lot from another. If the front 15 feet setback is met along Prospect, all of the existing parking in front of the building would be lost. The petitioner is planting as much landscaping as possible, which is a definite improve- ment since there is no landscaping at all at the present time. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that if the property to the west should ever be developed with a residential use, the petitioner be required to construct the privacy fence at that time." There were no notices or letters received. Jerry Curtis, 1318 Springwood, spoke representing the owner of the proper- ty. He explained what they were proposing to do with the property. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance per staff condi- tion. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Szopinski, Thede, Murphy, Lieser. Nays: None. The letter from Mayor Horak was discussed. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. BM/PB/dz Respectfully submitted, Bernard Murphy, Chairman J QTkc /-�cZ-k-I' .- Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator -9-