Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/08/1984• C ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 8, 1984 Regular Meeting - 8:30 a.m. The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 8, 1984 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, and Dodder. Boardmembers Johnson, Walker and Murphy were not present. Staff Members Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 11, 1984 were approved The minutes of the regular meeting which was held on October 11, 1984 were unanimously approved. Appeal #1570. Section 118-43(C) by Larry Michaud for Housing Rehab, ill Buckingham - Approved. There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 4S feet for a single family dwelling in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is an existing lot, platted with only 45 feet of wivth. The petitioner desires to move a house onto the lot. Nothing can be built without a variance. All setback requirements will be met. Staff recommendation: Approval." Petitioner Larry Michaud explained the situation and why they needed a variance. He felt that the house that they would be moving to the lot would be a real improvement to the neighborhood. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, and Dodder. Nays: None. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes asked if the Board could change the order of the appeals so that another by Mr. Michaud could be heard. The Board - members agreed. 0 • Appeal #1581. Section: 118-43(C), 118-11(definition of dwelling) by Larry Michaud for Housing Rehab., 117 Buckingham -Approved. There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 4S feet for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone. The variance would also reduce the minimum size of a dwelling from 800 square feet to 750 square feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is an existing lot, platted with only 45 feet of lot width. The new house is one which will be moved onto the lot and only has 750 square feet of floor area. This is being done with grant money and there is no money to build an addition. The house is just for one man, so it should be big enough. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Petitioner Larry Michaud said that the present house had been condemned by the Building Inspection office and currently there was no sewer, water or electricity to the house. The man that owns the property now lives in his camper at the rear of the lot. Boardmember Thede was concerned about the smallness of the house, 750 square feet, but Petitioner Michaud explained that it had two bedrooms and a large dining -living room combination and would certainly be an improve- ment. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1571. Section 118-44(B), 118-44(C), 118-81(B)(3) by Joe Jablonski, Owner, 400 S. Meldrum - Approved --- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 square feet to 5000 square feet, the required lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet and the north side yard setback from 15 feet to 12.5 feet for a restaurant in the RH zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot and building are existing and there is no additional land available to buy. The building has previously been used for an office use and the petitioner proposes to convert it to a standard restaurant. See petitioner's letter for additional comments. -2- 0 • --- Staff recommendation: Approval. This property is bordered by the U.S. Post Office, the Lincoln Center, and Park Lane Towers. The lot would be a poor location for a residence, and any non-residential use in this zone would require the same variances. (The board did in fact grant the same variances in 1978 to convert the property from resi- dential to office use.) if granted, the variance should be for a standard restaurant only, so as not to allow a fast-food operation." There were no notices returned. One letter was received. "Petitioner's Letter "22 October, 1984 Joseph Jablonski 1160 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Subject Property: The North 1/2 of the West 100 feet of Lot five (5), Block 94 in the City of Fort Collins County of Larimer, State of Colorado Address: 400 South Meldrum ® The following zoning variances are necessary in order to begin planning for the establishment of a restaurant at the above address. It is intended that this restaurant provide a safe and convenient eating place for downtown businesspeople and professionals, those attending performances and functions at the Lincoln Center, people associated with the downtown Post Office, and residents of Parklane Towers. Developers of this restaurant intend to design and operate this establish- ment in a way that will enhance what they consider to be one of the finest neighborhoods in the City of Fort Collins. Necessary Variances; (1) Minimum area of lot: required to be 12,000 square feet. Lot size is 5,000 square feet. Total lot size curb to curb is 9,120 square feet. (2) Minimum lot width: to be 100 feet. Lot size is 100'by 50' Total lot size is 1201 by 76 . (3) variances requested to extend through August, 1985 although planned opening date is 1 May 85. Respectfully submitted, J. Jablonski" -3- P, Letter received from adjacent property owner. "7 November, 1984 Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Representing over eighty Fort Collins City Letter Carriers, Branch 849 of the National Association of Letter Carriers supports the Jablonski family endeavor with Cafe Boulanger. We understand the Jablonski's have recently applied for permission from the City to operate their restaurant at 400 South Meldrum and we herein urge the Commission to favorably consider their request. Sincerely yours, E.L. Reuter" Joe Jablonski, 1160 LaPorte Avenue, told the Board that he and his sister would like to start a restaurant at this address primarly because it is close to the Lincoln Center. After attending functions at the Lincoln Center they felt there was a need for a place that people could attend for dinner or drinks before and following performances. Petitioner Jablonski said it would not be a fast food restaurant, but a sit down restaurant. Because of the time frame of construction and applying for a liquor li- cense, Mr. Jablonski asked that the variance be extended to August 1985." Dave Siever spoke in favor of the variance. He said that the main reason he was there, was to hear their ideas. He felt that parking was a problem but not just his problem, also Mr. Jablonski's. He felt Mr. Jablonski had a very good idea. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the restaurant remain a standard restau- rant, not a fast food. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the, Board that they didn't mention the extension of time in the motion. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to extend the variance until August, 1985. The motion was seconded by Board - member Szopinski. Yeas: Thede, Lieser,.Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1572. Section 118-41(F) by Robert Wrigley, Owner, 120 N. Roosevelt - Approved with conditions. IThere were no notices or letters returned. -4- 0 --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet for an addition to a detached garage in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing garage is already located only 2 feet from the north lot line. The petitioner desires to construct a 6 foot addition so that the garage will be big enough to park his 3 cars in. The best way to add on is toward the alley and line the new construc- tion up with the existing walls. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections, from the neighbor to the north. Petitioner Robert Wrigley pointed out to the Board that to get into the existing garage, he had to drive across the backyard. This makes it impossible to have grass or a garden. If he could extend the garage to the alley, he would be able to use the alley access instead. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the drawing submitted be unchanged. Boardmember Szopinski seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopin- ski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1573 Section 1.18-43(E) by Nancy & Wayne Coffman, 615 West St. - Approved. "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a new detached garage in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: If the garage were located at the required 15 foot setback there would only be one foot between the house and garage. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices returned. One letter was received. There was a short note received from Ken Anderson, 619 West St., saying that the variance was ok with him. Mr. Coffman said that he has a Mountain Man Nut Business that he runs out of his home. At the present time he stores all of the products in one of the bedrooms. His wife is presently expecting a baby and they will need the room. There idea is to build the garage and put shelves up to store the product. -5- Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said that the fact that the garage was going to be used for a business came as a surprise to him. He explained to Mr. Coffman that home occupations have to be conducted entirely within the dwelling. They are not allowed to be conducted in detached buildings, even for storage. He said that the Board has acted on variances of this type before but the question he had was whether they could amend the variance request to include the home occupation fn a detached garage at this time or whether new application for a variance should be made so that the neighbors could be notified. The Board felt that they would feel better if the neighbors were notified. They told Mr. Coffman he would have to reapply for this issue. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the setbacks for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1574 Section 118-41(C) by Bob Heath, 1104 W. Magnolia - Approved. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 52 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone.. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is an older lot, platted with only 52 feet of lot width. Nothing can be built without a variance. There is no additional land available to buy. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices returned. One letter was received. "Zoning Board of Appeals - November 3, 1984 Appeal #1574 RE: 1104 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, Colorado Gentlemen of the Board: The proposed variance to reduce the lot size of the above subject property for puroses of erecting a single family dwelling is most objectionable to Mrs. McGuire and myself. We purchased our property on the corner of Wayne and Magnolia at 511, 8 years ago because of the attractiveness of the surrounding homes and properties adjacent to ours. We based our purchase on not only our dwelling but also those of our neighbors. Until the death of the former owner of #1104, and the adjacent dwelling, we have enjoyed the excellent care and maintenance of that said property. Squeezing another dwelling on a too small lot we do not feel is conducive to a continuance of an otherwise most delightful neighborhood. Every property owner who is concerned, wishes to maintain his or her property to its best advantage. The subject property was, and is, maintained very well at this • 0 time, and it is our hope it will continue. We have endured the encroach- ment of the business community, and their desires to move in and gradually change our residential status, you folks in Zoning have the power to grant or deny, and thus far we have remained fortunate. However, may we also find that you deny this variance for equal cause. Respectfully Richard M. McGuire" Petitioner Bob Heath said that he didn't feel that the house he plans on building would have any impact on the neighborhood. He explained that he grew up in the neighborhood and has special feelings about the area. Judy Burnt, 1108 W. Magnolia spoke against the variance. She felt that since it was an older neighborhood thad a new home wouldn't fit in. She had many concerns about the lot being sold without the next door lot and house being included. She said that it had been that way for many years and would like to see it that way now. The Board explained to Ms. Burnt that they did not split the lot, it has always been a separate lot, paying separate property taxes. Scott Condray, 1112 W. Magnolia, said that he was not opposed but wants to see the design. He feels the design of the neighborhood should remain the same. Boardmember Leonard Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for a nine month period. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1575. Appeal #1576. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Bob Black, 1000 Sycamore, Appeal #1577. 407 Park St., 413 Park St. - Approved.` "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 5750 square feet and reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is an older lot, platted with less lot area and width than todays code requires. .Without a variance, nothing can be built. The petitioners intent is to develop the units as much needed low income housing. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. The lot area reduction is not too great and low-income units are needed in the City. This duplex would be part of a 3 duplex project on this vacant land. Appeals #1576 and #1577 are the same." There were no notices or letters returned. -7- Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes asked the Board to hear all three vari- ances at once. The three properties are attached and are the same. Petitioner Bob Black informed the Board of his intentions. He said there are already eight duplexes on the street. He said that basically, the reason that he is building a two story unit is that he will be able to give each unit a nice size yard rather than a lot of asphalt. David Parker, Purchaser, spoke in favor of the variance.. He felt that their project was very tasteful and would enhance the neighborhood. Larry Clark, 1008 Sycamore, spoke opposed to the variance. Mr. Clark was concerned that there would be too much tarffic and because they will be low-income rentals, he felt it would lower his property value. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. This motion approved Appeal #1575. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve Appeal #1576 for the Hardship pleaded. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: . Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder,. Nays: None. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve Appeal #1577 for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Dodder, Szopinski. Appeal 11578 Section: 118-91(0)(2), 118-95(D) by Brian Oliver, Sign Contractor, 833 S. Taft Hill Road - Approved. "--- The variance would allow a 32 square foot per face freestanding project identification sign to be located outside of the development it is advertising, and would allow two freestanding signs to be located along Taft Hill Rd. on one piece of property in the RMP zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The sign will be the leasing sign for Sunray Place PUD. This PUD has no frontage on a collector or arterial street and is located about 300 feet from Taft Hill, so any sign located within the development would not be visible from any major street. There- fore, the petitioner proposes to place the sign on Bethel Baptist church's property on Taft Hill. Since the church has a sign of their own on Taft, this new sign would be the second sign on one street frontage. 1.2 Ej --- Staff recommendation: Approv hardship in that they are "la visibility for leasing purposes. would be about 800 feet apart, should consider a time limit coni There were no notices returned. "October 23,.1984 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN -- The Sunray Apartments have our permi the northeast corner of our vacant 1 Sincerely, Bethel Baptist Church Bob Logan; Pastor" Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said a hardship and asked the petitioner to Sunray Place has a legitimate )eked" and have no adequate sign ince the two signs along Taft Hill 'e would be no clutter. The Board on on this variance. :er was received. to place a sign on that this petitioner definitely has explain. Petitioner, Brian Oliver, reiterated the hardship to Bethel Baptist Church has given their permission he grant the variance. the Board. Since asked the Board to Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to grant the variance for a period of. 12 months for the hardship stated. This would give them time to lease the apartments. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1579 Section 118-95(0) by Luke Sargent for Taco Bell, 1527 W. Elizabeth - Approved. "--- The variance would allow two freestanding signs on a piece of property in the BP zone which has only one street frontage. The second free- standing sign would be used as a menu board sign at the order station for this drive-in Taco Bell restaurant. ' --- Hardship pleaded: A menu board is needed at the order station so that customers will know what foods are available and their cost. This menu board also speeds service because orders are taken before the customer gets to the pick-up window. Since the order station is loaated approximately 40 feet to the south of the building, the menu board must take the form of a freestanding sign. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. Similar variances were granted for Wendy's and Macdonald's restaurants. There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Luke Sargent stated that the reason that they were asking for a variance to the sign ordinance is that due to the fact that they are trying to go mainstream and upgrade their image. This will not be the traditional Taco Bell. It 'is musch bigger than the other restaurants and will have a seating capacity of 88 but they still feel a drive -up window is essen- tial. A drive -up without a menu board would be defeating its .purpose. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal #1580 Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Pete Legeros for Conine Company, 1708 Erin Ct. - Approved. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area to 7840 square feet and reduce the required lot 74.91 feet for a new triplex in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: steep and makes available to buy. this subdivision, August 13, 1981. from 9000 square feet width from 75 feet to The lot is an existing platted lot which is quite. development costly. There is no additional land Similar variances were granted for other lots in and this same variance was granted for this lot on --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the garages be located under the main living level as presented on the plans. With the garages on the bottom floor, enclosed parking is provided, and thus, even though the lot is lacking in lot area it will actually have more open space than the other developed lots in this subdivision. There were no notices returned. One letter was received. "1740 Concord Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80526 November 3, 1984 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins 300 W. Laporte Fort Collins, CO 80521 -10- RE: Application of Pete Legeros for Conine Company, Contractor for vari- ance of code Sections 118-43(B), 118-43(C) for 1708 Erin Court, Fort Collins, CO Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Item No. 1580. Dear Mr. Barnes: We received notice from your office of the above -referenced hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. We own the property at 1704 Erin Court legally described as: Lot 4 and the North 20 feet of Lot 5 of the.Replat of Edora Acres, Second filing Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. My wife and I plan to be out of town on the day of the hearing and I am filing this letter in protest. It is not clear to me how Mr. Pete Legeros intends to establish a hardship in support of his request, but we feel it would impose a hardship upon adjoining property owners. Specifically, it will create a higher density for the neighborhood with the normal resulting negative impact such as increased auto traffic, on -street parking, noise, etc., Although we have not seen the plans for any proposed building, the change from a duplex to a triplex could easily impact upon the light and/or view from our existing building. _ We purchased our property and made improvements upon it based upon existing zoning requirements. For reasons stated herein, we, Charles R. Wilkins and Silvia Wilkins have submitted this protest on behalf of the application for .modification of Pete Legeros. Respectfully submitted, Charles R. Wilkins" Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that the subdivision had quite a history. There are only about 10 lots in the subdivision. Lots 1-4 were platted by the developer with less than 9000 square feet. His intention was to develop lots 1-4 with duplexes. The remaining lots in the subdi- vision were. platted with more than 9000 square feet and his intention was to build tri-ppexes or four-plexes. As the subdivision started all of the bigger lots got built first. Then someone came along and used part of one lot in connnection with another lot to build a fourplex on instead of a duplex. Michael S. Brown appeared for Conine Company as the petitioner. He ex- plained that by building the units with underneath garages there would be much more green area and he thought it would add to the appearance of the neighborhood. -11- I Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Lieser, Szopinski, Dodder. Nays: None. Other Business Carl Glaser came before the Board asking for opinions on his sign ideas for the building he occupies on Jefferson Street. He showed the Board slides of large canvas signs that he wishes to use. There would be three in a row. After discussion, the Board felt they were not comfortable with the proposal and asked Mr. Glaser if he might consider changing his proposal. -12-