Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/13/1984ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 13, 1984 Annual Meeting - 8:30 A.M. The annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 13, 1984 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Boardmembers: Dodder, Szopinski, Walker, Johnson, Lieser, Thede and Murphy (who came in late). Staff Members Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 9, 1984 were approved The minutes of the regular meeting which was held on August 9, 1984 were approved unanimously. Appeal #1559. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a) by Jim Borland, 445 N. College Ave. - Approved There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required parking setback along the south and west lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet for an auto parts store in the IG zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The building and lot are existing. The owner is changing the use of the property and is therefore required to comply with the parking code. The building is set back 40 feet from the south lot line, which does not leave enough space for the parking stall, driveway, and 5 foot setback. Since the building is already there it is not feasible to move the building. The owner is upgrading the property wherever possible. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the hardship further. He stated that Mr. Borland would be required to have a 19 foot parking stall, a 20 foot driveway, and also provide a 5 foot parking lot setback. This adds up to 44 feet and Mr. Borland only has 40 feet on the south side of the building. Mr. Borland explained that there were many safety factors to take into consideration when planning the parking lot for this building. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said they wanted to keep traffic from backing out on College if possible. r 0 Boardmember Dodder asked if more landscaping could be added to the north- east. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that this would enter the right-of-way and couldn't be done. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Johnson, Lieser, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal #1560. Section 118-91(C) by Howard Johnson for Urban Data Sciences, Southwest Corner of Drake & Shields -Tabled until the end of the meeting. Appeal #1561. Section 118-92(A) by City of Fort Collins Light & Power, 4501 Boardwalk. Buildina M - Denied. There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would allow one 16 square foot, single -faced sign to be erected on the site of a multiple -family development. The sign does not advertise the development but instead advertises a project equipped with City energy conservation devices. This type of sign is not classified as a development sign and therefore not allowed in this zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The Light & Power utility desires to publicize their "Hot Shot" program by indicating that entire developments are making use of it, and that it is a good program which anyone can participate in. This sign is very small and shouldn't be obtrusive and will be taken down when construction is over. --- Staff recommendation: None. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the Board that this was the same type variance that they had approved for the Baystone project. Sharon Held with the Fort Collins Light & Power said that she only expected the sign to be up for 2 to 3 months. She also stated that they would like to have a blanket type variance that would make it easier to advertise on other projects as long as they met the zoning setbacks. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said that the discussion after the last meeting when they had approved the same variance was that the Board was afraid they were setting a precedent. This is similar to Fred Schmidt appliance store wanting to put up a sign saying that this unit is supplied with G.E. appliances by Fred Schmidt. That's the type of discussion that was held after the meeting. As far as a blanket variance, Zoning Adminis- trator Barnes felt this would not give the individual property owners adjacent to the project a right to come forward. -2- • 0 Sharon Held said that they are not selling a product like Fred Schmidt, they were simply advertising a service. Boardmember Johnson felt there was not a hardship the last time the vari- ance was requested and said he still doesn't see one. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to deny the variance for lack of a hardship. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Johnson, Murphy. Nays: Szopinski, Lieser. Appeal #1562. Section 118-41(E), 118-41(F) by John Glass, Contractor, 223 Lyons St. - Tabled. Appeal g1563. Section 118-81(D)(1)(d), 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b) [61 by Jim Mucklow, Owner, 3836 S. College Ave. - Approved with conditions. There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would allow a portion of a parking lot to be gravel surface instead of hardsurface, would reduce the required 15 foot parking lot setback along College Avenue to 10 feet, eliminate the required 5 foot parking lot setback along the east and south lot lines, and reduce the amount of interior parking lot landscaping from 6% to 5% for a travel agency in the HB zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot and building are existing and the owner is changing the use of the property from a liquor store to a travel agency. This requires conpliance with the parking code. The gravel portion will only be used for storage of rental cars and is in the rear of the lot. In order to leave wide enough driveways around the building for fire access, the required setbacks can't be met without moving the building, which would be a real hardship. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. The owner has done a good job in presenting a plan which is a vast improvement over the existing situation." Discussion was held regarding the gravel portion of the parking lot. John Castille, partner with Jim Mucklow, told the board that the gravel section will be used to park rental cars on. If they pave it, it will encourage customers to park there and that is not the intended purpose. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the gravel parking lot at the rear only remain as long as the use of the building does not change. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Johnson, Lieser, Murphy. Nays: None. -3- ! 0 Appeal #1564. Section 118-41(E), 118-41(F) by Doug Bahrenburg, Owner, 601 City Park Ave. - Approved. There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet and the side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet for a single family dwelling in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot and building are existing. The structure used to be used for a business and the new owner desires to convert it to a single family dwelling. The only way to comply with the code would be to move the building. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Lloyd Hagan, owner of the property at 600 City Park Ave., spoke in favor of the variance. He felt that Mr. Bahrenburg would beautify the property. They do not want a business in that area but would be happy with a single family home in the building. Millie Cummings, owner of the property at 603 City Park, said that they share a common drive -way and the traffic through the last several years has been extremely bad with the commercial use of the building. She would not mind the variance if a fence would be put down the middle of the drive -way to keep the traffic out of her yard. Mr. Bahrenburg said he would be happy to comply. Motion was made by Boardmember Szopinski to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Johnson, Lieser and Murphy. Appeal #1565. Section 118-96(A) by Rhey Wright for Poudre Valley Hospital, 1024 Lemav- Approved with conditions. "--- The variance would allow two projecting wall signs to exceed 15 square feet in area. Specifically, the variance would allow two signs to project from the south end of the Poudre Valley Hospital, with each sign being 48 square feet per face and consisting of two faces. --- See petitioner's letter for hardship. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the property owners to the south." There were no notices or letters received. -4- Petitioner's letter: "August 30, 1984 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: PVH Sign Request Dear Peter: Thank you for the opportunity to submit the enclosed information that is pertinent to our variance request for the emergency department. As you are aware, Poudre Valley Hospital will be going through extensive construction during the next many months. This construction activity is going to create some traffic confusion at our facility. It is our hope to abate any confusion that might be centered around our "emergency" depart- ment and ambulance area. It is our intention to utilize some small direc- tional signs to direct the traffic as is needed. Further, it is our desire to utilize two permanent sign additions to our building on the south end that will read "Emergency". It is the intent of these two signs to provide clear direction to our emergency area during construction and after the time that the project is completed. We have had these signs designed in such a fashion so as to not detract from our attractive brick structure. These signs will act as architectural blade extensions off the south end of our building. We have analyzed many different possibilities and find that this will be the most functional and the most attractive. The sign that is closest to Lemay Avenue is located 275 feet from the center line of Lemay Avenue. It is clearly very necessary to have this sign be of the size and nature as designed to be effective from Lemay Avenue. It is unfortunate that the sign code does not have any specific category for this type of sign. Therefore, it is necessary for our hos- pital to request your consideration on this matter. I look forward to answering any questions you might have at the upcoming ZBA meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Rhey Wright Marketing Specialist RW/dd Enclosure" -5- Boardmember Lieser and Thede said they thought the visibility of the Emergency Room was extremely important. Boardmember Szopinski felt that this was too much signage. He felt that the sign could be reduced and still provide visibility from different directions. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the sign have a maximum of two faces with a maximum of 96 square feet of total signage. Boardmember Murphy seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Johnson, Lieser, and Murphy. Nays: None. Appeal #1566. Section 118-62(A)(1), 118-43(F) by Ed Davis, 4025 S. Mason - Approved. "--- The variance would allow a building housing a church to reduce the required side yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet for a church in the HB zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner desires to locate a church in two interior spaces of a new building that is partially completed. The building was designed to be built as a shell building with the in- terior spaces finished separately, with other uses in mind which do not require a 25 foot setback. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. The setback requirement for churches is basically required as a buffer to neighboring residential lots. There are no neighboring residential lots in this area." There were no notices or letters returned. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Johnson, Lieser, Murphy. Nays: None. Appeal #1567. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Evan Gilmartin, 320 N. Loomis - Granted with conditions. "--- The variance would reduce the minimum area of lot from 6000 square feet to 4900 square feet and the minimum lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: This lot is in the old part of town and the pre- vious structure burned down. The petitioner wishes to move another building on the lot which will meet all of the required setbacks. Nothing can be built without a variance. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." There was one letter received. am "9/12/84 To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident at 318 N. Loomis next to the property petitioned for duplex construction. I have lived at the above address for two years and have eagerly looked forward to construction on the adjacent lot for two rea- sons: 1) As an avenue to increase my property value in a blue collar neighborhood 2) and to remove an eye sore. It does not concern me, that a duplex will be placed there. If further comment is necessary please feel free to contact me at the above address. Larry Murphy M.D." Robert Kline, 322 N. Loomis, spoke opposed to the variance. He felt very strongly that a duplex was too much for the size of the lot and the area. Parking is a problem in the neighborhood and Mr. Kline felt this would only make it worse. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes pointed out that Mr. Gilmartin was meeting the parking requirements. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that only a single family dwelling be built. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski. Nays: Johnson, Lieser, Murphy. Motion failed. Boardmember Murphy made a new motion to approve the appeal for the hardship Pleaded with the condition that the building will be no bigger than the envelope shown. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser, Murphy. Nays: Dodder, Szopinski. Motion carried. Appeal #1560. Section 118-91(C) by Howard Johnson for Urban Data Sciences, Southwest Corner of Drake & Shields -Approved with conditions "--- The variance would allow two "For Sale" signs on one piece of property to exceed the allowed 6 square feet in the RP zone. Specifically, one sign on Drake would be 32 square feet and one sign on Shields would be 16 square feet. - Hardship pleaded: The signs are to market a 300 unit PUD on 16.5 acres. A small 6 square foot sign would not be big enough to be read along these two major streets. Both signs are set back more than 50 feet from the right-of-way line and are not obtrusive. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters returned. -7- Petitioner Howard Johnson explained his situation to the Board. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded for a 6 month period. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Boardmember Lieser asked that Boardmember Walker vote for her as she was out of the room for this variance. Yeas: Dodder, Szopinski, Walker, Johnson, Murphy. Nays: None. The Boardmembers discussed whether to hear Appeal #1562. The petitioner was not present. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the Board they could grant it, deny it, or table it. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to table the decision. He felt it was important for the petitioner to be present. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Motion carried unanimously. Election of new officers Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to elect Boardmember Murphy as Chair- man. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Motion carried unanimously. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to elect Boardmember Lieser as Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. Secretary Chairman 10