Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/14/1994Zoning Board of Appeals July 14, 1994 Regular Meeting 8:30am Minutes The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 14, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Michelena, Perica, Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Cuthbertson. Board member absent: Huddleson. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gustafson. Council Liaison: Ann Azari Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Staff Support Present: Peter Barnes Ann Chantler The minutes from the June meeting were approved with corrections. Appeal 2105, 2212 Vermont Drive, by Steve Pink, P.A. Signs, approved with conditions. Section 29-591(6). The variance would allow a housing project I.D. sign to be located at the project at a location other than at an entrance to the project. The variance would also increase the allowed size of the sign from 35 square feet to 55 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow the permanent "Pinecone Apartments" I.D. sign to be located along Timberline Road, where there are no entrances and would allow 35 square feet of individual letter signage to be applied to a brick wall. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The project is located along Timberline Road which is an arterial street. Because of the arterial street designation of the amount of traffic on Timberline, the housing project was not allowed an entrance on to Timberline, however, the code requires the sign to be located at an entrance. The applicant and owner feel that causes the project a hardship in identifying the project so that is can be located from the major street frontage. Zoning Board of Appeals July 14, 1994 Page 2 ----- Staff Comments: The locational aspect of this request is similar to the one heard by the Board at the May meeting for the New Colony Apartments on Shields, and for other apartment cohplNzwsCmhopgsgpgegusnts on Shields, and One letter was received. A copy is attached. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this multi -family complex is located on the corner of Vermont and Timberline. On the same corner the new Fort Collins High is located as well as a Schroader General store and gas station. Mr. Barnes stated the code will allow a sign into each entrance of a sub -division. Steve Pink, owner of P.A. Signs appeared before the Board. He stated the proposed sign was designed to take traffic off Timberline and reduce accidents and traffic congestion. Mr. Pink stated the apartment complex will have 15 buildings and 150 units. With the number of occupants, service people and guests, a sign is needed on Timberline to direct them to the complex. Board member Gustafson asked Mr. Pink if the sign would be illuminated. Mr. Pink stated the sign would not, but indirect lighting would be in the landscaping and subdued in the front. Board member Breth asked if an exit sign was posted out of the gas station and for safety reasons and lack of confusion could the sign be moved more to the Northeast. Mr. Pink replied that was a possibility. Board member Perica stated he identifying the complex, but did too large. He asked Mr. Pink if sign. had no problem with the sign have a concern that the sign was he could reduce the size of the Mr. Pink replied the sign was the same size for all multi -family complexes, but this sign was different because it was not placed at an entrance. Mr. Barnes reviewed the code'and stated the letters are placed on the "entry wall" so this makes it a ground sign. Entrance walls to subdivisions are not counted as ground signs. E Zoning Board of Appeals July 14, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Pink stated he would not like to reduce the sign size as it was marking the complex on a large arterial street. Board member Michelena stated he could understand the why they wanted to identify the apartment complex, but there is already on sign on Vermont street. He asked if there was any other way to sign that the entrance was on Vermont street. Mr. Pink stated the City's Planning Department decided how the apartments were to sit on the lot. He felt the City should take some blame for the problem that the entrance is off Vermont. He also stated a sign needs to overstate the intent and needs to be clearly defined. Board member Michelena asked. if Vermont was a busy street. Mr. Barnes stated Vermont is the street to enter to the new high school. Mr. Michelena then asked if a permanent sign could be placed directly on the building. Mr. Barnes stated it could, but it would have to be smaller than the present sign. Board member Perica asked of this Board could approve the sign location and still be consistence with the City's sign code. Mr. Barnes stated this Board could be conditions on this appeal. Board member Michelena stated he could not find a hardship and didn't see the need for such a large sign. He thought it better to place the sign further to the North and reconsider the size and location of the sign. Board member Perica stated he supported the location of the sign but felt the sign should be smaller. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Shannon stated the property needed to be identified, but the traffic situation also needed to be considered. Board member Michelena stated the project already has a sign at their entrance, the size of the additional sign needs to be considered. He stated he was concerned that more project like this may be coming to Fort Collins and this Board needs to be careful about setting a precedent. Zoning Board of Appeals �'�� July 14, 1994 � ` L Page 4 Board chairman Gustafson stated he was not concerned about the size of the sign but is concerned about the location of the sign. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that it was unusual for a large project such as this, to have only one emergency entrance. Board member Breth stated he did not support the size of the sign in the proposed location and he agreed with the need for a second sign, but would like to see the sign moved up to the North and East. Board member Perica agreed that the sign should be moved Northeast of Building C. He made a motion to approve Appeal 2105 with the condition that the location of the sign be moved Northeast and be placed facing the Northwest direction so it would be visible to traffic traveling on Timberline. The motion was seconded by Cuthbertson. Yeas: Perica, Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Cuthbertson. Nayes: Michelena. The motion passed. Appeal 2109, 1030 West Oak Street by Craig and Brenda Carlile, approved. Section 29-119(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west property line from 5 feet to 3.4 feet for a second story addition to a single family dwelling. The west wall of the second floor will be at the same setback as the existing west wall of the house ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is a narrow lot (only 40 feet wide). The house is an older home that was constructed with on a 3.4 foot setback. It is necessary to construct the walls of the second floor on top of the bearing walls below. Large mature trees in the back yard prevent an addition of any good size from being built behind the house. Staff Comments: The building footprint is not being enlarged with the construction of this second floor addition. Board member Glen Perica excused himself because of a conflict of interest. Zoning Board of Appeals Op p July 14, 1994 Page 5 L Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the house is in an older part of town and only 3 feet from the property line. Brenda Carlile, owner, appeared before the Board. She submitted to letters of support from her neighbors. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Cuthbertson stated this was a similar appeal to many in the past. Board member Gustafson stated this was a good addition to the neighborhood. Board member Breth stated the addition would add to the neighborhood. Board member Michelena moved to approve appeal 2109 for the hardship stated. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Michelena, Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. Appeal 2110 by Jerry Mead, owner, 832 E Laurel Street, approved with condition. Section 29-167(4). ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow the addition of an oversized one -car garage to the north side of the existing single-family home. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is small, only 4,500 square feet. There is no place on the lot to build a detached building. The home has no basement or garage. The owner would like to build an oversized one -car garage in order to be able to park one car and also have some room for storage and workshop. The house is on a corner lot and the house faces the legal street side lot line. Therefore, the legal real lot line actually functions as an interior side lot line, which requires only a 5 foot setback. ----- Staff Comments: This is a typical corner lot situation that the Board has dealt with on numerous occasions. Zoning Board of Appeals � r July 14, 1994 11 y Page 6 One letter was received in favor of this appeal. It is attached. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this was a corner lot. He then defined the legal lot description. Board chairman Gustafson asked if 4,500 square feet was a typical lot size for this area of town. Jerry Mead, owner, appeared before the Board. He had no additional comments but was available for questions. Frances Jane Rivers, property owner next door, shared some concerns with the Board that she had already worked out with Mr. Mead. She stated her picture window looks directly into the proposed garage and didn't want equipment and miscellaneous stuff stored outside the garage. She didn't want her trees roots affected by the foundation and or the driveway. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Gustafson stated this is another case of an older home on a small lot and with the two property owners working out an agreement, he would be supportive of this appeal. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the Board has the authority to place conditions on appeals and could do so to prevent a window from being placed in the garage. Board member Breth asked the appellant if he could move the garage further towards the back of the lot. Mr. Mead stated because of the roof line that was not possible. Board member Michelena moved to approve Appeal 2110 for the hardship stated with the conditions that no opening be on the north wall and the side facing the neighbors not be used for storage. The motion was seconded by Board member Perica. Yeas: Michelena, Perica, Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. Appeal 2111 by Jim Norman, owner, 422 W. Myrtle Street, approved. Section 29-210(5) I Zoning Board July 14, 1994 Page 7 of Appeals n The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 1.4 feet and along the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet for an addition to the single-family dwelling. The addition would connect the house to the existing detached garage and add living space to the rear of the house, and some additional second floor space. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is narrow (45'), the house and garage are already at these reduced setbacks and the proposed addition will line up with these walls. The 1.4' setback on the east lot line is adjacent to the parking lot of an apartment house, so it won't impact the neighboring property. ----- Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this home was in the older part of town. Jim Norman, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated his hardship was the narrowness of the lot. He stated the home has been in the family for since 1960, has only 1300 square feet, no storage and a root cellar under that house that he would like to keep. The house is 105 years old and he would like to keep the roof lines in line when he puts on the addition. Tom, Architect Plus, appeared before the Board in support of this appeal. No one was present in opposition of this appeal. Board member Michelena asked if this addition would be used for a business. Mr. Norman said it would not. Board chairman Gustafson stated he felt this would add value, to the neighborhood. Board member Michelena stated he thought it would be a nice addition and agreed the narrowness of the lot was a hardship. He then made a motion to approve Appeal 2111 for the hardship stated. Board member Perica seconded the motion. Yeas: Michelena, Perica, Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Cuthbertson. The motion passed. J Zoning Board July 14, 1994 Page 8 of Appeals The meeting was adjourned. Robert Gustafson, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin. 0 • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 14, 1994 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal 2105. The variance would allow a housing project I.D. sign to be located at the project at a location other than at an entrance to the project. The variance would also increase the allowed size of the sign from 35 square feet to 55 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow the permanent "Pinecone Apartments" I.D. sign to be located along Timberline Road, where there are no entrances and would allow 35 square feet of individual letter signage to be applied to a brick wall. Section 29-591(6) by Steve Pink, P.A. Signs, 2212 Vermont Drive. 3. Appeal 2109. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west property line from 5 feet to 3.4 feet for a second story addition to a single family dwelling. The west wall of the second floor will be at the same setback as the existing west wall of the house. Section 29-119(5) by Craig and Brenda Carlile, 1030 West Oak Street. 4. Appeal 2110. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow the addition of an oversized one -car garage to the north side of the existing single-family home. Section 29-167(4) by Jerry Mead, 832 E. Laurel Street. 5. Appeal 2111. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 1.4 feet and along the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet for an addition to the single-family dwelling. The addition would connect the house to the existing detached garage and add living space to the rear of the house. Section 29-210(5) by Jim Norman, 422 W. Myrtle Street. 6. Other business. 5. Appeal