Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/12/1993e • 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 1993 Regular meeting 8:30 a.m. The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 12, 1993 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Anastasio, Michelena, Cuthbertson, Gustafson, Clark, Huddleson and Perica. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gustafson. Council Liaison: Ann Azari Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Staff Support Present: Peter Barnes Jennifer Nuckols The Minutes from the October 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting were approved. Appeal 2089, 2121 S. Collecre Avenue Petitioner: Jim Watterson and Anne Watterson, owner. Approved. Section 29-595(h) --- The variance would allow one free-standing sign for this property. Specifically, the proposed sign is a 97 square foot, double -sided sign which will advertise the self - storage development which is being developed on this lot in the HB zone. (The code allows one free-standing sign per street frontage. However, this property does not front on a street, it is behind Kelly -Moore Paint. Since the lot has no street frontage, a variance is necessary to allow the sign.) --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot has no street frontage, and due to the elevation change from College Avenue and the location of the nearest storage building, it is not feasible to place a sign on the wall of the building. The only practical solution is a free-standing sign. Boardmember Anastasio excused himself from this appeal due to a conflict of interest. Zoning Administrator Barnes showed slides of the area and explained the location of the building in relation to College Ave and other existing commercial buildings. He stated that because the building will be set so far back, a sign on the building would not be able to be seen by anyone. Chairman Gustafson questioned whether the other commercial buildings to the south had signs on College Ave or just the building signs? Mr. Barnes stated that Mountain States Electronics has a free-standing sign on College Ave. that advertises many of the businesses that do not front on College Ave. Boardmember Huddleson questioned if the sign would be visible 1 • 0 Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 1993 Page 2 from College Ave? Mr. Barnes stated that it would be only when you are driving northbound, but visible only for a few seconds and most likely unreadable. The sign would be about 300 ft from College Ave. The owner of the property, Jim Watterson, appeared before the Board. Mr. Watterson stated that Mr. Barnes described the situation well and that even when you are driving north in the summertime, the trees will completely block the sign from sight. In the winter, a portion of the sign may be able to be visible. Mr. Watterson was questioned as to why he wants to put the sign up. He explained that it is primarily to help people find the property, not for advertising. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Boardmember Michelena questioned Mr. Watterson on how he came to the dimensions of the sign. Mr. Watterson stated that he questioned the Zoning Department as to what was allowable. Boardmember Michelena stated that he had a problem with the size of the sign and because there are other hidden buildings in the area, there could be conflict in that the others business owners do not have the same opportunity to put up such substantial signs. Boardmember Huddleson stated that because of the topography of the area, there is an exception and that the petitioner only wants something to use as a location sign. Chairman Gustafson stated that the other surrounding buildings have building wall signs which are at least 80 square feet and their buildings and signs are visible. However, the petitioner's building will not be visible, so wall signs will not help him. Co-chairman Cuthbertson stated that it was within the sign allowance, and in addition to topography, this falls under unusual circumstances, with the building not having a street frontage and hardship being that the business is not visible from the common street. Boardmember Perica moved to approve appeal 2089 due to the stated hardship. It was seconded by Boardmember Michelena. Yeas: Michelena, Cuthbertson, Gustafson, Clark, Huddleson and Perica. Appeal 2090, 329 S. Sherwood Street . Petitioner: Bill Coulson, buyer. Approved. Section 29-167(4) and 29-167(5) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 4.5 feet, and reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet. The variances are required pursuant to the proposal to convert the existing building from a dry I • 0 Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 1993 Page 3 cleaners to a triplex. The building is in the NCM zone. No additions are proposed to the building. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot and building are existing. Any change of use from the previous dry cleaners will require these variances. The only way to comply with the required setbacks would be to demolish portions of the building. Zoning Administrator Barnes went through the slides showing the location of the building, on the corner of Canyon and Sherwood. He explained that it was rezoned two years ago to NCM from RH, which does not allow a dry cleaners but does allow multi -family. He also explained that any change of use, would require a variance because the setbacks are not adequate to comply with those required for any use. The petitioner, Bill Coulson, appeared before the Board. Mr. Coulson stated that Mr. Barnes explained the situation thoroughly. He stated that to not grant a variance on this building, would create an extreme hardship on the owner. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Boardmember Cuthberston said that in order to bring the building to compliance, demolishing part of the building would be required and that it seemed like an undue hardship to have to do that. Chairman Gustafson stated that the hardship was in the size of the lot and placement of the building and that by making it residential, would make it fit with the rest of the neighborhood. Boardmember Huddleson motioned to approve appeal 2090 due to the stated hardships. Chairman Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Michelena, Cuthbertton, Gustafson, Clark, Huddleson and Perica OTHER BUSINESS Election of officers. Bob Gustafson was voted in unanimously Chairman. David Anastasio was voted in position of Vice -Chairman. to retain the position of unanimously to the Update on Appeal 2087. Zoning Administrator Barnes updated the Board on Appeal 2087, Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 1993 Page 4 which was brought before the Board in the October 1993 meeting, and will be going before City Council on December 7, 1993. No new business. The meeting was adjourned. Robert Gustafson, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator A • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 1993 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal 2089. The variance would allow one freestanding sign for this property. Specifically, the proposed sign is a 97 square foot, double -sided sign which will advertise the self - storage development which is being developed on this lot in the HE zone. (The code allows one freestanding sign per street frontage. However, this property does not front on a street, it is behind Kelly -Moore Paint. Since the lot has no street frontage, a variance is necessary to allow the sign.) Section 29-595(h) by Jim Watterson and Anne Watterson, 2121 S. College Avenue. Appeal 2090. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 4.5 feet, and reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet. The variances are required pursuant to the proposal to convert the existing building from a dry cleaners to a triplex. The building is in the NCM zone. No additions are proposed to the building. Section 29-167(4) and 29-167(5) by Bill Coulson, 329 S. Sherwood Street. 4. Other business.