Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/09/1984U ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 9, 1984 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 9, 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: Szopinski, Murphy, Lieser, Johnson, Dodder, and Alternate Members Thede and Walker. Boardmembers Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1984, Approved as published The minutes of the January 12, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved as published. Appeal #1493. Section 118-44(B), 118-81(0)(3)(e) by Rick Djockic for Mother's Inn, 424 W. Mountain Avenue - Approved with con- ditions There were no notices returned and four letters received. The letters were read at the January 12, 1984 meeting. Two of the letters were asking that the appeal be tabled because the authors of the letters could not be present. Decision was tabled until February 9, 1984. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 55 feet and would reduce the number of parking spaces from the required five to two for a group home in the RH zone. --- Hardship pleaded: There is no additional land available to buy and the only place to put the additional parking would be between the garage and the house, eliminating all of the open space for the tenants/clients to enjoy. Parking for employees will be provided at the St. Joseph's Church parking lot and Home Federal's accessory parking lot. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that if the parking agreements with Home Federal and St. Joseph's are terminated the applicant must seek a new variance." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that this appeal had been tabled at the previous month's meeting so that adjacent property owners could be present. 91 0 -2- February 9, 1984 Mr. Ray White, for Mother's Inn, stated that the parking situation seems to be the major obstacle. They can provide 4 on -site parking spaces and the rest of the parking provided will be remote. Spaces are being provided at St. Joseph's Church and Home Federal's parking lot. Mr. White doesn't see the need for more than 4 parking spaces at the home. The maximum number of residents to live in will be eight. The average age has been between 20 and 21 years. Most of the residents living there now are below the age of 20. Owner of the property, Mike Keefe, stated that there is 15 feet behind the garage that could be made into another parking space. One house parent is on the premises full time. Another employee comes in three times a week on a full day basis. Potentially there may be one volunteer coming in on a sporadic basis. The younger women are required to go to the teen mother's program to continue their education. If they are not working on their education they are required to seek employment. This cuts down on traffic at the home during the day. Mr. White stated that they are not buying this home, they will be leasing it. Boardmember Johnson stated that there are two main factors that the Board will be considering in this issue. The use is permitted in this zone and there are requirements set forth in the Code for this use and the Board is considering the lot width and the reduction of parking spaces from 5 to 4. These are the only issues that this Board has jurisdiction over. Peter Gunderson, who has an office at 320 W. Olive and is owner or repre- sentative of properties at 408 and 412 W. Mountain and 114, 118 and 124 N. Sherwood, stated that two years ago at considerable expense and a time period of seven months he obtained a P.U.D. for 408-412 W. Mountain. One of his biggest obstacles was on -site parking. He met every requirement the City had for providing fourteen on -site parking spaces. He feels that this project will be an infringement on the parking in front of his buil- ding at 408-412 W. Mountain. He does have lots for sale at 114, 118 and 124 N. Sherwood that the applicant could buy and use for parking. He felt that visitors would not park at St. Joseph's or Home Federal when they came to visit. Mr. Gunderson wanted to stress that he is in favor of the concept but opposes the location. Boardmember Johnson asked Mr. Gunderson if he has sufficient on -site parking why doesn't he want others using the on street parking in front of his building. Mr. Gunderson stated that he does not want other people infringing on his on street parking spaces. He is hoping to get a two hour limit on the street parking when the buil- ding is finished. Boardmember Johnson stated that the parking on Mountain Avenue can't be tied to any specific person who lives there. Being a public street, anyone can park there. Mr. Gunderson felt that granting the variance to Mother's Inn would mean a tremendous overflow of parking. f -3- February 9, 1984 Boardmember Dodder asked whether the character of the neighborhood is single family or rentals. Les Kaplan, resident of 430 W. Mountain Avenue said that he didn't think that you could classify the neighborhood as either. He stated that this is a transitional neighborhood and long term implications should be taken into account. Les Kaplan stated that there are mixed uses, offices, rentals, and single family. Mr. Kaplan said that every transition within that square block has had to go through the P.U.D. process. Steven Pickelner owner of 420 W. Mountain stated that his objection to the variance was based on the parking situation. He rents 420 W. Mountain to three people who presently park on the street. Mr. Les Kaplan, 430 W. Mountain Ave. felt the issues of this variance go far beyond the parking issue. The two questions that he would point out were whether the petition was valid and whether or not the use itself in the area would be for the best development pattern for the area. He read from the Code: "variances should only be granted with the public interest in mind and in a fashion that is consistent with the most appropriate development of the neighborhood"." He also said that in the code it talks about hardship to the owner. He felt the owner in this instance was not going to suffer any difficulties. In this case the applicant is not the owner nor does the applicant have the property under lease. Mr. Kaplan said he had offered his assistance in locating a facility for Mother's Inn. He suggested three properties with addresses properly zoned in which he had an ownership interest. One house which would have had to be moved, Mr. Kaplan offered to donate to Mother's Inn. He had no reply to his offer. Mr. Kaplan feels that anything other than a single family dwelling or a duplex should have to go through the P.U.D. process where remote parking is not allowed and a thorough landscape design would be provided. Code Administrator Peter Barnes instructed the Board that the group home was allowed in this zone. The use, he stated, was not an issue. The impact that it has can be considered an issue. He wanted them to consider lot width and parking, however when the Board considers these, they need to consider whether it will be a detriment to the public good or in particu- larly this neighborhood. Peter Barnes addressed some of Mr. Kaplan's remarks. He said that staff has looked into land use in this area and because of that the zoning code was amended to require that in the RH zone certain uses would be required to either do a P.U.D. or do a RH site plan review which in that case has to comply with the zoning code as Mr. Kaplan stated, or if it does not comply with the zoning code requirements and needs a zoning variance from this Board, which you have done in the past, and then it goes on to the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Barnes felt that probably 70% of all of the RH conversions have come to the Zoning Board of Appeals first for variances and then on to the Planning & Zoning Board. 1E -4- February 9, 1984 The group home was not listed as needing to be scrutinized. It was at the prodding of the Supreme Court that the City of Fort Collins revised the Code a number of years ago to even allow group homes in residential zones being that they are residential uses. Mr. Kaplan said he wished to restate his summary of a property owner applying for a variance. As far as he knows it need not be a property owner applying for a variance but he does feel the hardship should lie with the property owner and not the petitioner. Evan Gilmartin appeared before the Board. He now resides next to Mother's Inn at their current address. He stated that Mother's Inn now has three parking spaces and that there has never been any problem with parking and his driveway abutts Mother's Inn property. Ray White, petitioner for Mother's Inn, stated that it is not an emergency shelter. It. is not the kind of program that has a lot of high use people coming in and out. They don't want that. Usually what is needed and what they have seen to date is that the woman needs a place to live. For that reason it is not a shelter home. The use is more in line with residential application. It will be a home, not a business. Parking enforcement can start with requiring the employee to park at Home Federal or St. Joseph. The house parent does not even have a car and as of right now, only one of the residents have a car. But that could change. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion that they approve the variance to reduce the required lot width from 60 to 55 feet but that they deny the variance for the parking adjustment. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser. Nays: Dodder, Johnson, Murphy. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to grant the reduced lot width from 60 to 55 feet and grant the variance for the reduction of parking spaces. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Johnson, Murphy. Nays: Szopinski, Dodder, Lieser. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to deny the entire variance. There was no second. Motion died. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to reconsider Szopinski's motion which was to approve the variance to reduce the required lot width from 60 to 55 feet but that they deny the variance for the parking adjustment. Motion was seconded pre- viously by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Johnson. Nays: Dodder, Murphy. The variance was conditionally approved 3-2. Appeal No. 1494. Section 118-97(D) by Joseph Ostrum - Denied There were no notices returned and two letters received which were read into the record as follows: 0 0 -5- February 9, 1984 "February 6, 1984 Zoning Board City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 8OS22 Dear Members: This letter is in support of a proposal for downtown walking sign board advertising being presented by Joseph Ostrom. This kind of advertising, with necessary guidelines, can be a unique and colorful addition to the downtown sidewalks. Mr. Ostrom has precisely addressed my areas of concern and should have no reason to deviate from the standards he has developed. I recommend approval be given to this proposal. Sincerely, Jane Van Velson Executive Director Fort Town" "February 8, 1984 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in support of Joseph Ostroms efforts to do Sand- wich Board Advertising in Fort Town. The Sandwich Board is a unique advertising tool for the merchants downtown. I feel that this type of advertising would add a touch of early century color to our downtown. Joseph Ostrom is a man of great talents and I feel that he will be able to carry through the Sandwich Board Advertising with flair and professionalism. Sincerely, Judy Boggs President, Paul Wood Florist" r 52 "--- The variance would allow the petitioner advertising business, whereby businesses agency to have a person walk around town advertising a particular business. These defined by code, and prohibited. February 9, 1984 to operate a sandwich board would hire the petitioner's with a sandwich board sign signs are portable signs as --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner feels that this would provide a unique advertising technique for small businesses, and would be done in a tasteful manner. --- Staff recommendation: The petitioner's proposal of period costumes and antique -type lettering for the downtown area is certainly tasteful and would be fun for Old Town. However, the granting of a variance for no hardship would present legal problems when confronted with similar requests in the future." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that this was another item that was tabled from last month's meeting. Portable signs are prohibited under the sign code. The petitioner proposes having an advertising agency where he would hire out people who would walk around certain areas of the down- town with a sandwich board sign advertising a daily special etc.. We discussed last month that there are several things that could be done here. One of those would be to amend the ordinance. By doing that we would be opening it up to anybody in town and we could have all kinds of people possibly walking around with sandwich boards, which is something that staff didn't think would be the right approach. We talked about the possibility of a contract similar to what the City has done with the bus benches. Meeting with the City Attorney's office, Peter stated that they felt this was not appropriate either. He also stated that staff doesn't have any problems with the concept, however by granting a variance of this nature there could be some legal problems for the City. Ken Frazier, City Attorney, stated that if the variance is granted for the hardship stated that it is our opinion that the Board would never have any way of precluding any variance of this sort from being granted. The question that the City Atotrney has to foresee is what to do with any and all applicants after this is granted. It was his opinion that if granted, the Board would essentially open the same door as you would by an out and out code revision. Portable signs were discussed. Boardmember Dodder asked if it were illegal to walk down the street with a placard above their head on a stick. Peter Barnes said it was. He said they have a real problem with this because even a person with a T-shirt advertising something is a portable sign. City Attorney Frazier felt that it may be enforced because of the health, safety, welfare of the community. The problem being that portable signs can be a real distraction to motorists. That is the same reason flashing neon signs have been excluded from the code. • 4 -7- February 9, 1984 Joseph Ostrum, petitioner, said that he felt his sign would not be a health or safety hazard. He said the route that his carriers would walk is pretty much out of traffic except for a short section down College Ave. Mr. Ostrum proposes to have only three at maximum on the street at once. Mr. Ostrum also talked to some downtown merchants and they are very receptive to it. He said he was willing to go with many restrictions and would even go with a temporary approval. After a year they could revoke it if things weren't working out. Boardmember Dodder asked what hardship was present besides economics Mr. Ostrum said there was none. Boardmember Walker asked if they couldn't fit the sandwich board into the present code as a banner. Peter Barnes said banners are attached to a building so they wouldn't fit into that category. Carol Ostrum spoke in favor of the variance. She felt the uniqueness of the signs would be enough to keep it from being overrun by a lot of people. She felt it was a much cheaper way of advertising for small businesses. Zoning Administrator Barnes directed the Board in three different ways: 1) Denial. 2) Grant the variance and the Board would be obligated to grant all other variances of this nature. 3) Or grant the variance for a period of nine months and at the end of that time period the Board can see what has been happening with it. There is no specific hardship to deal with. Boardmember Murphy said that Joseph Ostrum had asked for a "change in the law", which to the Board would mean a code change and he also hadn't shown a hardship. Boardmember Murphy felt that without a hardship the Board had no valid reason for granting a variance Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that every variance granted is a law change. Board member Dodder said that there has never been a variance granted without a hardship. George Harris, an audience participant, spoke favorably for Joseph Ostrum's idea. He asked the Board to approve the variance for a period of time and then review how the project has worked out. Mr. Harris felt that Mr. Ostrum's own set of rules for this project are very restrictive. Boardmember Johnson felt it is a very attractive proposal but also felt that the Board does not have the authority to grant this variance. Board - member Dodder said he felt by approving this for a period of time it would give the Board information needed on a possible code revision. Peter Barnes restated that he does not feel a code change is in order. Peter Barnes feels that the hardship is that this variance does not have a certain piece of ground to consider as in setbacks, shallowness, narrow- ness, etc. -8- February 9, 1984 Boardmember Johnson said that it was very clear in his mind that code states portable signs are not allowed, and this is clearly a portable sign. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to deny the appeal based on no hardship shown. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Szopinski, Dodder, Lieser, Johnson, Murphy. Nays: None. The variance was denied 5-0. Appeal No. 1495. Section 118-61(B) by Brian Soukup for Foxfire Property Management, 706 S. College - Granted There was one notice returned and no letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 9900 square feet to 7000 square feet. The code requires that the lot area be twice as big as the floor area of the building, and since the proposed addition will bring the floor area to 4950 square feet, the 9900 square foot lot is required. --- Hardship pleaded: The addition is needed to accommodate the increase in the number of employees. It will make for a better work environ- ment for employees, and better traffic flow for clients. Since the back portion of the lot is required for parking, the only direction to build is up, this then will not increase the size of the actual building footprint. There is no additional land available to buy, however the petitioner does own the properties behind this one and is using some of that lot area to provide parking for this building. So when that lot area is added to this lot, the code is actually met. --- Staff recommendation: Approval since the building footprint is not being increased and the second story addition will not be any higher than the existing back half of the building." Brian Soukup, petitioner, stated that the reason they feel they need to expand is because now they have three employees in one small office and a lot of traffic with tenants and owners. It is very congested. There is only one way to expand and that is to go up. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the appeal for the hardship pleaded. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Szopinski, Dodder, Lieser, Johnson, Murphy. Nays: none. The variance was granted 5-0. At this point, Boardmember Dodder excused himself from the meeting and Boardmember Thede voted on the rest of the agenda. L -9- February 9, 1984 Appeal No. 1496. Section 118-43(C) by Berk Conway & Dick Brauch, 318 N. Grant - Granted. There were two notices returned and no letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is an existing lot in an older subdivi- sion, platted with only a 35 foot width. There is no additional land available to buy. Nothing can be built without a variance. All setback and parking requirements will be met. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. Every lot on the opposite side of the street is already occupied by a duplex. Since the size of the building footprint is no larger than it would be for a singe family dwelling, and since all setback and parking requirements are satis- fied this duplex should not be out of character with the existing development of the block or have any substantial detriment to the neighborhood." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told that the petitioner plans to de- molish a small shack and build a duplex on the site. Any new structure whether single family or a duplex would need a variance on this site. Directly across the street are a group of duplexes. Berk Conway & Dick Brauch, petitioners, felt they would be improving the lot. A two story duplex will be put on the lot. Dick Brauch stated that they have met the parking requirement and the lot is already zoned for a duplex. The only thing they need a variance for is the width of the lot. _ Janese Moore, resident at the house south of the lot in question, brought in a petition against the variance. Comments that she got from neighbors are that their lots are too narrow and they don't want any more duplexes. Water pressure was another complaint the neighbors had. Mr. Kintzley, owner of the home on the corner of Maple and Grant, asked that the variance not be granted because of the water pressure As each new duplex is built, their water pressure decreases. The neighbor on the north was also opposed to the variance. His address is 620 N. Grant. His objections were the same as the other neighbors. He also expressed concern about the trash from the duplexes across the street. It blows across the street to their yards and they are continually picking it up. V -10- February 9, 1984 A motion was made by Boardmember Lieser and seconded by Boardmember Thede to approve the variance. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Thede. Nays: Johnson, Murphy. The variance was granted 3-2. Appeal No. 1497. Section 118-41(B) by Larry Klein for Bartran Homes, 1548 Quail Hollow Dr. - Denied There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the lot area requirement from 6480 square feet to 6300 square feet to satisfy the requirement that the lot area be three times the floor area of the building for a new home in the RLP zone. --- Hardship pleaded: Due to the nature of the subdivision, it is impor- tant to achieve a proper balance of both size and exterior appearance. The overall lot sizes are slightly smaller which requires a pre - planned mix, with some options by prospective buyers. Taking area from adjoining lots would create a similar problem on the next lot. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. The hardship is self-imposed. The developer can put a different house on this lot, or build this house on a different lot." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes pointed out that the Board had two plot plans. One for the house with a size needing a variance and the other plot plan of a ranch style that would fit on the lot without a variance. Larry Klein, Bartran Homes, stated that the subdivision is within a P.U.D. but couldn't qualify as a P.U.D. They had to develop it as a straight subdivision. Therefore they were not aware of the 3:1 ratio. The lots on both sides of this lot have already been sold so they can't borrow from the other lots. A motion was made by Boardmember Szopinski to deny the appeal. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Johnson, Thede. Nays: Murphy. The variance was denied 4-1. 4 0 0 -11- February 9, 1984 Appeal #1498. Section: 118-44(C), 118-44(F), by Stan Dragoo, 220 S. Sher- wood - Granted There were no notices returned and four letters received. "February 6, 1984 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Barnres: RE: #1498 Zoning Board of Appeals On behalf of Mr. Stanley R. Dragoo, I support his request for modification of zoning ordinance to support the residence at 220 South Sherwood Street, to be utilized in accordance with the self Help Anonymous Groups in Fort Collins. Yours truly, Public Service Company of Colorado William Stultz Marketing Supervisor" "February 6, 1984 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is to express my support for allowing 220 South Sherwood to be used as a meeting place for self-help anonymous groups. I ask the board to consider approving the variance as requested. Sincerely, LaVerna M. Barnhart 2504 W. Elizabeth St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 482-2904" D "February 6, 1984 To Whom It May Concern: Let this letter serve as an acquainted with Mr. Dragoo for him to be honest and reliable honorable. -12- February 9, 1984 introduction to Stan Dragoo. I have been seven years. During such time I have found and I have observed his intentions to be Mr. Dragoo has advised me of his intentions of applying for a zoning variance to provide a meeting place for AA clients. I feel he has given much preparation and considered the interest of the clients in this pro- posal. I ask the board to consider approving the variance as requested. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 221-7103. Rod V. Bottoms 3813 Lynda Lane Fort Collins, CO 80526" "Mr. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator and Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in response to legal notice regarding appeal No. 1498. We are strongly opposed to granting this variance request for the following reasons. I. Increased traffic on a residential street. 2. Probable parking problems on S. Sherwood. Due to the fact the parking for the meeting house is to be in three separate locations, it seems probable that many patrons will park on the streets rather than search out the various proposed parking areas. There is no surplus parking at present. The location in proximity of Lincoln Center does, at times, increase parking congestion in this area. 3. The residential character of the neighborhood would be degraded due to increased noise and congestion during business hours. The house would become a vacant building during nonbusiness hours. CI -13- February 9, 1984 4. Higher probability of increased non-residential use in the future in this area. 5. We do not see why the logic behind the 100 foot lot width required by code does not apply in this case. A change from 100 to 50 feet is not a trivial variance. We regret that we cannot attend the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, but trust that you will give full consideration to our objections. Sincerely, Robert L. Bauman and Sheri Bauman 217 S. Sherwood St." "February 6, 1984 Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Zoning Variance -220 South Sherwood Dear Mr. Barnes: As Acting Chief of Police of the Fort Collins Police Department, I have been requested to write a letter of support for the self-help anonymous group requesting a variance at the above address. Our Department has no knowledge of Mr. Dragon's specific organization; however, we are in support of facilities such as those proposed by Mr. Dragoo which accommodate Alcholics Anonymous and other self-help anonymous groups and would encourage their inclusion in our community. If you should have any questions reagarding this matter, please advise. Sincerely, Jerry L. Wallace Acting Chief of Police" • 0 I 4 1' -14- February 9, 1984 --- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet and the side yard setback on the north side from 9 feet to 6 feet for a meeting hall in the RH zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot and buildings are existing and there is no additional land to buy. The parking requirements are being met. The building will be used to hold meetings for self-help anonymous pro- grams, wherein a residential setting is most conducive for the meet- ings and also helps to insure anonymity. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the house would be converted to meeting place which is permissable in the RH zone. It requires 100 feet of lot width. Peter Barnes stated that one of the letters addresses the 100 foot requirement being reduced to 50 feet. Peter explained that the 100 feet is basically a requirement for new development. There are no 100 foot wide lots in residential zones. There may be up to 35 people at each meeting. The code requires that they have one parking space for every five seats in the meeting hall. Based on that they would need seven parking stalls. They provide six on -site and have parking provided by Public Service and Mabel Preble's parking lot. Stan Dragoo, Petitioner, stated the need for the meeting place to be in the downtown area. Not all of the people have cars and by having it in a central location they can utilize the public bus system, ride bikes, walk, etc. There is already a facility on Mathews Street. It is a house but not as big and they are overflowing at this moment. They have been there five years and have never had any incidents. The only time the house would be vacant would be after 10:00 p.m.. The meetings traditionally start at 8:00 p.m.. There will usually always be someone there. Meetings are sometimes held at 12:00 noon also. Sheri Bauman, 217 S. Sherwood St, came opposing the variance. She was concerned mainly about the parking. Ms. Bauman said that when Lincoln Center has a big activity, parking is very hard to find. She is concerned about the residential character of the neighborhood. Chris Edwards, owner of the house at 216 S. Sherwood St. (which is a rental), spoke opposing the variance. He stated that when he lived in the house he could hear the neighbors conversation because of the close prox- imity of the houses. It is his concern that the noise will bother his renters. He also is concerned about the parking situation. Mr. Edwards stated that he very strongly opposes this and hopes that the Board sees the problems. 0 -15- February 9, 1984 Boardmember Walker pointed out to the Board that they usually deal with lot width reduction from 60 to 55 feet and this is a 50% reduction which he felt is substantial. He feels there is a good reason for the code to say 100 feet for a meeting hall. This implies, for a more intense use such as this, you do need that additional space so as not to overload an area. A motion was made to deny the variance the change from 100 feet to 50 feet Boardmember Murphy seconded the motion. Lieser, Johnson, Thede. Motion failed. to grant the variance for the hardship member Lieser. Yeas: Lieser, Johnson, The variance has been granted 3-2. )y Boardmember Szopinski. He feels s too much for the use intended. Yeas: Szopinski, Murphy. Nays: Boardmember Johnson made a motion stated. It was seconded by Board- Thede. Nays: Szopinski, Murphy. Appeal No. 1499. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)(6) by Robert Pennock for Southland Corp., 505 S. Shields - Granted There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required parking and landscape setback on an arterial street from 15 to 10 feet along Mulberry and from 15 feet to 6 feet along Shields and would reduce the required parking area interior landscaping from 6% to 1.5% for a retail and gas station use in the BL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner will be demolishing an existing service station and will relocate the pumps to a different location. The City will require that the owner dedicate additional right-of-way on Mulberry and Shields in order that the street can be widened to improve the traffic safety and efficiency at this busy intersection. This reduces the size of the lot, and in order to provide safe and efficient circulation in the parking lot, it is not possible to provide the required landscaping and setbacks. --- Staff recommendation: Approval: The proposed redevelopment of the property would greatly enhance the streetscape of this intersection and would also allow the City to obtain the needed right-of-way to improve the traffic flow. In addition, a sidewalk would be installed and several curb cuts closed off. The benefits to the entire City greatly out -weigh the loss of some landscaping at this location." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that the safety of the intersec- tion after these changes are made would greatly help the area. The petitioner, Robert Pennock, and Peter Perotta with the Southland Corp. told the Board that they do intend to remodel the entire store including the orange mansert. A new cedar facia will be installed. Landscaping will be adjacent to the sidewalk. -16- February 9, 1984 Gordon Wolfle, who's mother lives next door to 7-11, asked if he could have some help from Southland people over problems they have had. Snow removal problems, fumes from cars at 7-11, traffic cutting across the alley and over their lawns, car lights shining in the bedrooms at late hours were things that he was concerned about. They have had these problems for years but couldn't get any response. He is not opposed to the variance but wishes assistance from Southland people. Boardmember Murphy moved to approve the variance for the hardship stated. It was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Johnson, Murphy, Thede. The variance was granted 5-0. Appeal No. 1500. Section 118-43(C), 118-43(F) by Dick Gould, 716 Maple St. - Granted. There were 4 notices returned and no letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 35 feet and the side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 4 feet on the west side for a new duplex in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: Due to the narrowness of the lot, nothing can be built without a variance. A similar variance was granted on Septem- ber 11, 1980 but has now expired. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. This is very similar to the vari- ance granted by the board last month at 613 Maple St." David Shands appeared for Dick Gould asking for the variance. It had been approved for a variance in 1980 and they are asking for a repeat of that variance. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Johnson, Murphy, Thede. Nays: none. The variance was granted 5-0. Appeal No. 1501. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Evan Gilmartin, 327-331 Garfield and 1105 Peterson - Denied. There were no notices returned and one letter received. 4 i -17- February 9, 1984 "February 4, 1984 Dear Mr. Barnes: I appreciate your giving us the opportunity to respond to Mr. Gilmartin's request for a variance of 118-43(B) and 118-43(C). I plan to come to the meeting, but would like to clarify several points in writing. I've talked to neighbors who seem to assume that Mr. Gilmartin does not plan any new construction on his properties. My interpretation of the notice is that he plans to build a new duplex behind and south of 327 and 331 Garfielld. If my interpretation is correct I am opposed to the granting of the variance and I believe others may be as well. If I am correct I think a clarification should be sent out and the hearing post- poned. I am opposed to a new duplex in the block for the following reasons 1. The 1100 block of Peterson already has four dwellings which are du- plexes or have basement apartments. The two just south of me may be in violation of code due to lot size, but I am not sure. 2. The on street parking for residents and guests along the block is already out of hand. Many evenings we cannot find parking in front of our house. We have called the police twice this fall due to drunk party goers sideswiping a resident's car as they pushed it by hand, and due to people driving over our front lawn and across a flower bed, destroying both it and a tree. 3. Not a weekend goes by that I don't pick up half a dozen beer cans and whiskey bottles from my front lawn. I'm not opposed either to parties or students (I teach at CSU), but I believe the density factor is important and that our block should not be turned into a student ghetto. 4. In the past several years there has been an average of one drug raid per year on our corner. Maybe that's a fact of life in this neighbor- hood, but again I wouldn't like to increase the frequency. 5. Two of us in the corner area have small children. My son is two. I believe an additional duplex in this block (total of five) would increase traffic density to an unacceptable level. I enjoy living in an area with students, retired, and working people mixed together. And I hope this can be suitably maintained. . , G 0 -18- February 9, 1984 6. None of the student rental houses in our block shovel their walks -- ever. We live with this but I don't want to increase it. Please call me if I am in error in thinking that the variances would indeed give Mr. Gilmartin permission for new construction. My office phone is 491-6996. I believe Mr. Gilmartin should have obtained these variances before closing on his purchases of the properties. He could easily have listed them as contingencies in the contracts. I might mention that I also own rental property in Fort Collins so I am not unsympathetic with the problems of owning property and conforming to city codes. In fact I bought a property in an RM neighborhood which was subsequently downgraded to RL. I have now sold it, but at the time my plans for making the place into a duplex were thwarted as well. I appreciate very much your time and attention in this matter. Currently only 2 of 7 homes are owner occupied. When I moved here in 1976 it was 6 or 7 after I converted 1102 from my rental to my residence. Yours truly, Murray W. Nabors 1102 Peterson" "--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 5000 square feet for 327-331 Garfield. The variance would also reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 4000 square feet, and the lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The owner of 331 Garfield is interested in buying 327 Garfield, but only if he can do something with the back portion of the two lots (in this case build a duplex). By splitting off the rear 40 feet of these two lots and creating a 3rd lot, the lot area of the two lots on Garfield becomes less than 6000 square feet, thus the need for a lot area variance. The newly created lot, being 40 feet by 100 feet also needs a variance. Most of the corner lots in the neighborhood have been split off in the same manner years ago, so this is in keeping with the character of the area. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. The hardship is self-imposed." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed the Board that all three addresses will need a variance. 327-331 Garfield will need a variance to reduce the lot area and 1105 Peterson will need a variance to reduce the lot area and lot width. The current two houses will remain. The only thing they are doing here is creating a new lot. 0 0 -19- February 9, 1984 Evan Gilmartin, petitioner, pointed out all of the other lots that this has been done to. Kim Stanfield, resident at 331 Garfield, came to oppose the variance. She felt the variance would take away much of their lawn area which they enjoy. Murray Nabors, 1102 Peterson, came to the Board to reiterate what was in his letter. He is opposed to the variance. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to deny the variance because it is self- imposed. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Johnson, Murphy, Thede. Nays: none. The variance was denied 5-0. Other Business The Board needed to vote on the following proposed changes to the by-laws of the Zoning Board of Appeals: Article III, Section 6. The Secretary of the Board shall be the Director of Planning & Development. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept the minutes of each Board meeting, shall conduct all official correspon- dence and generally supervise the clerical and technical work of the Board. Article IV, Section 3. The Director of Planning & Development or desig- nee of the Director of Planning & Development shall mail written notice of the hearing of an application for variance to the applicant or to the appellant and to owners of property adjacent to the property in question at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing date. Motion was made by Boardmember Murphy to amend as written. It was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Johnson, Murphy, Thede. Nays: none. Boardmember Murphy made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Thede to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:40 p.m. Secretary 0 Chairman