Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/08/1984% (' 0 0 d4 (f4� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 8, 1984 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 8, 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: Murphy, Thede, Johnson, Lieser, Walker and Dodder. Boardmember Szopinski was absent. Staff Members Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Eckman Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9, 1984 were Amended The minutes of the February 9, 1984 meeting were amended in the following places: Appeal #1500 was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Between Appeal #1495 and Appeal #1496 Boardmember Dodder excused himself from the meeting and Boardmember Thede voted in his absence. On page 6 regarding portable signs, change Attorneys Frazier's statement from must to may. The minutes were approved with the above changes noted. Appeal #1502. Section 118-81(D)(2)(1a) by George Holter, 4001-4031 S. Mason St. - Approved There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required parking lot setback area along Mason Street from 15 feet to 14 feet and would reduce the required parking lot setback area along the west lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet for a retail use in the HB zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The west lot line is adjacent to the railroad property which acts as a built in buffer in itself. The 15 feet required on Mason is the required setback for arterial streets. Although Mason is designated as an arterial it is really designed and used to collector street standards which requires only a 10 foot setback. This same variance was granted on December 9, 1982, but has since expired. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes summarized the petitioner's request for the Board. -3- March 8, 1984 Boardmember Johnson asked how bright you can allow an interior lit sign to be. Peter Barnes said that there is really no way to restrict this. If he went by and saw that it presented a traffic hazard because of a glare, then the sign would have to be changed. Kay Mulder, representative for American Property Equities, had prepared a rendering of the sign for the Board to see. Ms. Mulder told the Board that most sign companies have regulations of their own regarding the sign illumination. The sign front will be pendaflex which is a flexible sign face which doesn't necessitate a strong illumination in the back. There would be a series of six bulbs in the sign. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said that when the code is changed it would not address any specifi- cations. Kay Mulder said that the pendaflex on the front of the sign was designed by the 3M Company to help cut glare and reflection that you often get with a plastic face. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the appeal for the hardship stated. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Murphy, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: Johnson. Appeal #1504. Section 118-93(B)(1) by Ron Rockvam for Curtis Mathes T.V., 2925 S. College - Approved There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would increase the sign allowance for the Palmer Plaza Shopping Center from 272 square feet to 310 square feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner is required to display a sign of this size as part of his franchise agreement with Curtis Mathes. The property has very little sign allowance because the narrow frontage of the building faces College instead of the side of the building con- taining the store fronts. There was a misunderstanding on the part of the sign contractor as to what signs were allowed on the property. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reminded the Board that there had always been problems with Palmer Plaza because the narrow portion of the building faces College which reduces their sign allowance. Ron Rockvam told the Board that he has two signs on the property. One was placed as part of his franchise agreement. The other he contracted out to Paul Morissey of Gardner Signs. Mr. Morissey was aware of the size sign -5- March 8, 1984 Appeal #1506. Section 118-41(E) by Cynthia Litton, 325 E. Prospect - Granted with conditions "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a detached 2-car garage in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing garage will be demolished. In order to make the best use of the back yard area it is desirable to locate the new garage further to the south. Also, a sun room addition will be built onto the south end of the house this summer, so if the garage is built to comply with the 15 foot setback, it will shade the addi- tion. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." There were no notices or letters received. Cynthia Litton's husband, Dan Jennings told the Board that they are plan- ning to take out both the garage and the shed. The new garage would face Peterson Street. The most usable portion of their back yard is where the existing garage sits now. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to grant the variance on the condition that the size of the garage be restricted to 24 x 24 as shown on the plot plan. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Murphy, Johnson, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal#1507. Section 118-43(F) by Andrew Cordova for Neighbor to Neigh- bor, 121 E. Buckingham - Granted "--- The variance would reduce the required 15 foot side yard setback along the side street to 7 feet for an addition to a single family home in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing house is already setback only 7 feet. It is most desirable to line the addition up with the existing wall, both for aesthetic and ease of construction purposes. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters returned. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said that there is a white building at the back of the lot that Neighbor to Neighbor is proposing to put an addition on to make it a residence. i 0 -7- March 8, 1984 is inappropriate to put landscaping along the north side for visibility purposes and also the adjoining property is completely undeveloped with weeda and building debris such that landscaping on Mr. Reynolds property would not help the appearance. There is no water at the back of this lot so all landscpaping would have to be hand watered. When the parking lot was installed, Mr. Reynolds didn't know that landscaping and setbacks were required. This is not a public parking lot. They are providing motorcycle parking spaces and there is already a handicap space in the front. They feel that the drive-thru parking lot will relieve a lot of the College Avenue congestion. Boardmember Walker stated that he had a problem looking at the landscaping as being a hardship. He felt that a large lot filled with cars and asphalt needed landscaping. Boardmember Walker said he had no problem with lack of landscape along a canal and he doesn't have a problem with the setbacks. But on the south side there is potential future development where it could adversely affect that property. Motion was made by Boardmember Walker to grant the variance with the stipulation that the south lot line is subject to review if development occurs on the vacant lot south of said property. Boardmember Murphy seconded the motion. Yeas: Murphy, Johnson, Lieser, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal #1509. Section 118-93(B), 118-95(A), 118-95(C) by Robin Claymore, 2627 S. College - Denied "--- The variance would increase the sign allowance for this property from 120 square feet to 134 square feet and would allow a 50 square foot per face freestanding sign that does not have free air space to be located eleven feet from the right-of-way line instead of the required 15 feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner rents the middle section of this building which has no frontage or exposure on a street. Sherwin Williams, the tenant on the street, has used up all but 2 of the 120 square feet of allowance. Putting the sign on the bottom of the existing free standing sign is the best place to put additional signage without cluttering up the streetscape. --- Staff recommendation: The hardship is somewhat owner of the building in that they allowed Sherwin the sign allowance, without ensuring that any was tenants. However, the increase in allowance the sign is set back far enough that the lack of not present a visibility hazard." self-imposed by the Williams to use all left over for other is very small and free air space does u Em March 8, 1984 --- Hardship pleaded: Plans for the development of this block have not yet been finalized and the owner plans to do this within 18 months. Any landscaping that was done at this point would have to be torn out when development occurs. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. On December 12, 1983 the ZBA heard a similar request for this entire block and the board denied the re- quests to eliminate the landscaping at that time. The petitioner is now revising his appeal in that the parking lot would no longer include the entire block, however, landscaping is still not considered appropriate by the owner. In view of the fact that any landscaping installed now could still be removed in a few years to accommodate development and then relocated on the site, staff feels that the hardship is not valid, especially for this important entrance into the City." There were no notices returned and one letter received. "500 South College Fort Collins, CO 80524 March 6, 1984 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO We, as adjacent property owners adjacent to the United Bank property at 400 South College, wish to express our Opposition to granting a variance eliminating the requirement that a par ing of be screened from the street by landscaping along College, Mulberry, and Remington which would reduce the amount of interior landscaping from 6% to 0% for a parking lot in the BG zone. This large expanse of vacant land is an eyesore when traveling down College Avenue and certainly adds nothing to the beauty of Fort Collins. We do not feel an exception should be made for the United Bank as much smaller businesses have been forced to comply with the ordinances. Sincerely, Jean L. King Laura Price" -11- March 8, 1984 Boardmember Lieser asked Mr. Lawrence what the time table was on the study group. Mr. Lawrence said that the time table on this first phase, which includes overall land study and coming up with a recommendation on the drive -ups and the land across the street, 708 S. College and their bank building should be done within sixty days. They have money in their 1984 budget for this and they have to get their plan into action. Boardmember Walker asked if the bank plans to use any of the land in the 400 Block of S. College as a parking lot for the bank. Mr. Lawrence stated that they would not be using it for parking. Mr. Lawrence stated that when that land is sold, the employees will park on the street. Boardmember Walker said that one option would be to say 'this is not a parking lot' and the whole issue is dissolved. He felt that the Board was being asked to come up with a temporary convenience situation. Mr. Banowetz said that what they were asking for is a temporary variance that would at least allow them to use this area which has always been used as a parking lot. He felt that it helps to keep cars off the streets which should be of interest to the City. Boardmember Dodder said his position is that if the lot is important enough for United Bank to want to use it for parking then they should put some planning and landscaping into it. If it is not that important then dis- continue the parking lot use. Mr. Banowetz stated that they were not considering a permanent variance. Boardmember Dodder said that he knew that but the lot has been sitting empty for a long time and he feels everyone is tired of looking at it that way. It is a visible entrance to the City. Boardmember Dodder said that everything that United Bank has presented is still in the preliminary stages and there is nothing firm as he understands it and this could go on for another year or two or more. The landscaping that could be put in would require an investment of money but it could also be used somewhere else on the lot when and if United Bank builds. Mr. Lawrence felt that taking the cars off the lot would not improve the appearance. That is why United Bank is asking for this short term variance. Mr. Lawrence said they would move the cars and impose the hardship on the employees which is going to come sooner or later anyway but it doesn't make the land look any different and it's going to continue to be an eyesore to everyone. Boardmember Thede said that the landscaping was their main concern the last time. Mr. Lawrence said that the bank had no intention of spending that kind of money on that piece of land. Mr. Lawrence wanted to point out to the Board that whatever they planted would take years to mature and it would not hide that lot. Boardmember Dodder said that the Board was not concerned with the maturity of the landscaping but the immediate improvement of the lot. Mr. Lawrence felt that the Board looked at it differently than he does, because he doesn't feel a strip of trees and bushes will improve the looks of the lot. He feels the only thing that will improve it is to put a building on it. Mr. Lawrence said it was not United Bank's intention to cause an eyesore and be hard to live with but neither was it their intention to spend a lot of money on something that was not going to last. Zoning Administrator 0 -13- March 8, 1984 connection with his landscaping business. Because of the location of trees and setback problems, it would be difficult to build an addition to the existing house for the proposed use, therefore a detached building is necessary. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." There were no notices returned and one letter received. "530 Sycamore Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 (303) 493-5972 March 6, 1984 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is a response to your request for input regarding a modifica- tion of the•Zoning Code by Daniel McGuire of 521 Sycamore Street and appearing on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 1512 As I am sure you are aware, the Holy Family neighborhood is the oldest, most culturally diverse neighborhood in Fort Collins. Because of its age and character, this neighborhood has successfully evolved with the changing times, and has traditionally supported a variety of uses. The fact that this neighborhood has continually met the needs of its residents has resulted in a stable, mature environment and has fostered a genuine feeling of community. Already, a variety of uses exists in the Holy Family neighborhood. These include a grammar school, a park, a gas station, low income housing, apartments, pre-fab and modular housing, a lumber yard, a concrete products company, a furniture warehouse, a railroad spur, and the City's municipal service yard. This current mix of medium density residential uses and the vast array of other uses has worked well and continues to provide an important, comprehensive function as an active, "close -in" neighborhood. The variance requested by Mr. McGuire - allowing a detached building to be used in connection with a home occupation - would enhance the overall integrity of the neighborhood by contributing to the diversity and viabil- ity of the area. -15- March 8, 1984 --- Hardship pleaded: The house will be moved onto the lot from Longmont. The lot is an older lot platted with only 35 feet of width. Nothing can be built without a variance --- Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters returned. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that no notices were sent to the property owners in lieu of a petition to waive 7 day property owner notice, signed by all adjacent property owners. Larry Michaud with the City Rehabilitation Program explained that the existing house in question is about two feet below sidewalk level and that instead of a foundation it is built -board on earth. It is all rotted out. The haste in this situation is because they have been waiting for a narrow enough structure that they could get under the program. They just located a house in Longmont that would fit the family's needs. They will be increasing the floor area by 20 square feet. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the appeal for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Murphy, Johnson, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Other Business. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the cases that had been ap- pealed to City Council and the decisions that had been made. Boardmember Murphy made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Dodder to ad- journ. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m. rman Secretary