Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/08/19930 • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting April 8, 1993 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 8, 1993 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Anastasio, Gustafson, Huddleson, Wilmarth. Members absent: Perica, Lancaster, Cuthbertson. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gustafson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Present: Susan Kirkpatrick Peter Barnes Peter Barnes Ann Reichert Paul Eckman The minutes from the March meeting were approved. Appeal 2056, 4600 S.Mason. by Kevin Callahan of Shaw Sign and Awning, approved with condition, Section 29-595(H). The variance would allow the property to have 3 freestanding signs instead of the 2 signs allowed by code. Specifically, the variance would allow an Amigo's Drive-Thru restaurant to have a 20 sq. feet, single -face menu board sign in addition to the two Amigo's I.D. signs located along Harmony and Mason. The property is in the HB zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: In order to allow the drive -up lane and window to function efficiently, it is necessary to have the menu board sign detached from the building an adequate distance in order to allow stacking for sufficient food preparation time. Since the property has only 2 street frontages, the code allows only two signs but it is important that a drive -up restaurant have a menu board sign for the drive -up lane. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 April 8, 1993 ----- Staff comments: The owner's plan calls for landscape screening in front of the sign in an attempt to screen the sign from the street. If the sign is screened from the street, then it is not considered a "sign", and no variance would be needed. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping along with the new landscaping proposed along Harmony and Mason streets, will adequately screen the sign. However, the shrubs that are planned in front of the sign will not mature to a 5 foot height for several years. Therefore, if the Board grants a variance it will probably be temporary in nature. When the shrub height reaches 5 feet,the menu board will no longer be a "sign". Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, reviewed the sign code and the location of the proposed signs for this appeal. He pointed out that the landscape in front of the menu board will be mature in approximately five years and this will not be considered a sign because it will not be visible from the street. Board member Huddleson asked Mr. Barnes to recall the reasoning of this Board in past situations like this one. Mr. Barnes stated the Board typically accepted these variances. Because of the type of this business and the stacking of cars, placing the menu board on the building is not a viable option. A menu board could be viewed as an informational/directional sign, not an ID sign. Kevin Shaw, of Shaw Sign and Awning, appeared before the Board, He stated they had considered placing the menu board on the building, but that causes stacking problems. He also stated Planning and Zoning Board has limited them to a smaller amount of signage than a usual HB zone would allow. Board Chairman Gustafson asked Mr. Barnes if that was true. Mr. Barnes stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended limitations for the Harmony and Mason signs which are more restrictive than the code allows. No one was present in opposition or in favor of this appeal. Board member Wilmarth asked if a temporary variance was granted, would the variance go with the business or with the property. Mr. Barnes stated the variance would go with the property. 0 • Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 3 Board member Anastasio stated the sign would be screened from the street and the owners had made sure that the correct landscaping was planned to screen the sign. Board member Gustafson stated he had no problem with this variance. Mr. Eckman stated the Planning and Zoning Board can put conditions on landscaping. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2056 for the hardship stated. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Mr. Barnes requested the Board put a condition on the variance that this be restricted to a menu board only. Board member Huddleson amended his motion to include the variance be approved only for a menu board and limit it to the size on the submittal. Board member Wilmarth seconded the amendment. Yeas: Huddleson, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth. The motion passed. Apneal 2057 818 West Oak Street by Jan Watson, contractor, approved, Section 29-119(5). The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 ft. to 4 ft. to allow the rear 8 feet of the house to be demolished and a new 12 feet addition to be constructed in its place. The home is located in the NCL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is very narrow, only 40 feet wide. Lining up the new wall at the same setback as the existing wall allows for a more functional floor plan and will look better aesthetically. Since 8 feet is being removed and being replaced with 12 feet of new construction only an extra 4 feet will be added to the house at a 4 foot side setback. Staff Comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 4 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained this is an older part of town and the existing house is only set back 4 feet. Jan Watson, contractor, appeared before the Board. She stated the construction would match the roof of the present house and be more aesthetic. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Wilmarth moved to approve Appeal 2057 for the hardship stated. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Huddleson, Wilmarth. The motion passed. Appeal 2058, 916 Woodford Avenue. by Roger Egli, owner, approved, Section 29-119(4). The variance would reduce the rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 13 feet in order to allow an addition to the side of the residence. The home is located in the NCL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The home is already existing on the lot with a rear setback of less than (1) foot. Since the home is located so far to the rear of the lot, an addition to the home must also be. In order to match the existing home's roof pitch and to line it up with the existing construction the additions must be built in this location. ----- Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the house is set at the back of the lot and the addition will comply with the front and West lot lines. Roger Egli, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated they would like to build on to the house and would like to follow the present roof line. Board member Huddleson asked Mr. Egli if there was an alternate plan to putting on the addition. Mr. Egli stated he could add on at Woodford and go west. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. • Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 5 Board chairman Gustafson stated the lot is narrow and the depth of the lot is not what is considered to be normal. Average depth is 100' and Mr. Egli's is only 881. Board member Anastasio stated with houses and lots this old, the history of why and how the lot was divided is not known. Board member Anastasio moved to approve Appeal #2058 for the hardship stated. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth. Nayes: Huddleson. The motion passed. Appeal 2059, 2901 South College Avenue. by Al Thompson, owner, passed. Section 29-493(1), 29-493(2)(f). The variance would reduce the required 5 feet wide land- scape strip along he south and north lot lines to 0 feet and reduce the required 68 interior parking lot land- scape islands to 0% in order to allow a small car rental agency in addition to the existing auto glass business. The introduction of this new use in the HB zone requires that the property be brought into compliance with the code. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: If the 5 ft. land- scape strip is required, then all the parking in the front and along the south side of the building would be lost. Providing any landscaped islands would result in the loss of needed parking. Access to the overhead garage door will also be made difficult if the 5ft. side landscaping is required. Staff Comments: Requiring the 5 foot setback along the north and south lot lines for the parking area in the front of the building would result in only a 20 foot wide curb cut. City standards for curb cut widths along the frontage road are 25-35 feet in order to allow for safer and more efficient ingress and egress. • 1• Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 April 8, 1993 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated AGS Glass will remain there, and the car rental office will be added. Mr. Barnes stated the properties on College Avenue have to comply with landscaping in the median as well as providing a sprinkling system. Al Thompson, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated the building was built on the property line when it was sub -divided. Because of the size of the lot, the rental cars would be kept behind the building. he also stated they could not reduce the curb cut size because large trucks make deliveries. Ken Pastor, of Pastor Motors, appeared before the Board in favor of this appeal. He stated he represented Ed Carrol and Spiro Palmer, both owners, and neighbors in favor of this variance. No one was present in opposition of this appeal. Board member Wilmarth stated she thought the appellant tried to comply with code and she saw no problem with the variance. Board chairperson Gustafson stated the added landscaping in the median and along the frontage road would become a buffer and the lot was narrow for a commercial lot. Board member Wilmarth moved to approve Appeal 2059 for the hardship stated. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Huddleson, Wilmarth. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Anneal 2061, 3037 Conestoga Court by Susan and Gary Murphy owners, denied. Section 29-133(5). Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 7 ----- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Swallow Road from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a 20' X 24' addition to the south side of the house. The house is located in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addition, due to the layout of the existing home, this is the most practical location for an addition. Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained two options, one would be to turn the garage into a living area, the other to build on the left side of the home. Gary Murphy, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated that he wanted to make an office in his home. They have four boys, and to add to the back would take away the play area for the boys. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated he did not see a hardship. Board member Gustafson stated he did not see a hardship with the lot, the family has just outgrown the property. Board member Anastasio stated he felt this was a self-imposed hardship. Board member Huddleson moved to deny Appeal 2061 for a lack of hardship. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Anatasio, Gustafson, Huddleson, Wilmarth. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 8 Anneal 2062. 1300 Riverside, by the petitioner, The Coloradoan, approved with condition. Section 29-493(1), 29-493(2)(f). The variance would reduce the required 5 foot wide parking lot landscape strip along the rear lot line to 0 feet, and reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscape islands from 6% to 0%, for a new parking area located behind the old Collins Cashway Building. The property is in the IL zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ----- Staff Comments: If the Board considers granting this variance, perhaps a time limit condition would be appropriate since the applicant is indicating that this may be a temporary parking lot. In 1985 and 1987 the Board granted variances eliminating the 5 foot landscape strip along the railroad to two other businesses along Riverside. The Board determined that in those two instances, (1) there was no aesthetic or practical value to landscaping the area along the railroad, and (2) the railroad tracks act as a built-in buffer and are a unique circumstance of the lot which satisfies the intent of the ordinance. Two letters were received, they are attached. Mr. Barnes explained this lot will be used for the parking of Colorodoan employees. Mr. Ben Herman, planner for EDAW and Mr. Gary Suisman, publisher of the Coloradoan appeared before the Board. Mr. Herman stated the Coloradoan is looking at a long-term growth plan and these two properties will be together. He stated the present parking for the employees is not safe, they have to cross Riverside to get to the office. He stated the Cashway sign would be removed, and the Colordoan would increase the landscaping along Riverside. Board member Huddleson asked Mr. Herman if there were plans of accessibility for the employees to the parking area. Mr. Herman stated there presently is a retaining wall, the plan is to construct a pedestrian access with a handicap ramp and a set of stairs. Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 9 No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Mr. Herman stated the hardship was there is no practical reason to landscape behind the building next to the railroad tracks. Board member Wilmarth stated the lot was narrow due to the existing building. Time limitations for this variance were discussed among the Board members. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2062 for the hardship stated, and because it is a temporary use of the property under this variance and that the variance be granted for employee parking of the Coloradoan only and until such time there is a change of use, whichever first occurs. Mr. Herman stated the Coloradoan may want to use the building for storage. Board member Huddleson stated the motion needed to be more specific to "the change of use". He amended his motion to read "as long as the Coloradoan uses it for employee parking." Board member Huddleson withdrew the motion. Board discussion followed. Board member Anastasio moved to approve Appeal 2062 with the condition that the Coloradoan use it for employee parking. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Huddleson, Wilmarth. Nayes: None. The motion passed. • Zoning Board April 8, 1993 Page 10 of Appeals Anneal 2063. 1932 Promenade Way, by Hank Lewandoski, approved, Section 29-133(2). ----- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is no additional land available to buy. All the other homes in the subdivision are setback 20 feet. In order for the 60 foot width required to be met, this home would have to be setback 43 feet from the front lot line. Aesthetically, the home would be an oddity in the neighborhood. All of the setbacks will be complied with. Staff Comments: The petitioner was not the original developer of this subdivision and had nothing to do with the platting of the lots. A home could be built on this property at a much greater setback then the other homes in the subdivision. This would place the house back far enough where the backyard privacy of the existing home to the south would be compromised. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes state this lot is pie -shaped. On the left side of the plot, there is some sort of storm drainage channel. There is not another lot on the left side, on the right side, there is an existing home. Hank Lewindoski appeared before the Board.He stated if he built his house to comply with the 60 foot lot width, the neighbors would have no privacy. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson moved to approve Appeal 2063, the hardship being the configuration of the lot. Board member Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson. Huddleson, Wilmarth. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1993 Page 11 The meeting was adjourned. Robert Gustafson, Chairman RG/PB:aer D �/3 a,� Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 8, 1993 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal 2056. The variance would allow the property to have 3 freestanding signs instead of the 2 signs allowed by code. Specifically the variance would allow an Amigo's Drive-Thru restaurant to have a 20 sq. ft., single -face menu board sign in addition to the two Amigo's I.D. signs located along Harmony and Mason. The property is in the HB zone. Section 29-595(H) by Kevin Callahan of Shaw Sign and Awning, 4600 S Mason. 3. Appeal 2057. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 ft. to 4 ft. in order to allow the rear 8 feet of the house to be demolished and a new 12ft. addition to be constructed in its place. The home is located in the NCL zone. Section 29-119(5) by Jan Watson, 818 W Oak Street. 4. Appeal 2058. The variance would reduce the rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15 ft. to 13 ft. in order to allow an addition to the side of the residence. The home is located in the NCL zone. Section 29-119(4) by Roger Egli, 916 Woodford Avenue. 5. Appeal 2059. The variance would reduce the required 5 ft. wide landscape strip along the south and north lot lines to 0 feet, and reduce the required 68 interior parking lot landscape islands to 08 in order to allow a small car rental agency in addition to the existing auto glass business. The introduction of this new use in the HB zone requires that the property be brought into compliance with the code. Section 29-493(1), 29-493(2)(f) by Al Thompson, 2901 S College Avenue. 6. Appeal 2060. The variance would reduce the required street side setback along West Stuart Street from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 121X26' addition to the north side of the house. The home is located in the RL zone. Section 29-133(5) by Don and Karla Nolan, 2001 Lexington Court. 7. Appeal 2061. The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Swallow Road from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a 201X24' addition to the south side of the home. The house is located in the RL zone. Section 29-133(5) by Susan and Gary Murphy, 3037 Conestoga Court. 8. Appeal 2062. The variance would reduce the required 5 foot wide parking lot landscape strip along the rear lot line to 0 feet, and reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscape islands from 6% to 0%, for a new parking area located behind the old Collins Cashway building. The property is in the IL zone. Section 29-493(1), 29-493(2)(f) by the Coloradoan, 1300 Riverside Avenue. 9. Appeal 2063. The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. Section 29-133(2) by Hank Lewandoski, 1932 Promenade Way. 10. Other business.