Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/11/1992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 11, 1992 Regular Meeting - 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 11, 1992 at 8:30am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Board members Wilmarth, Gustafson, Cuthbertson, Anastasio, Perica. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Gustafson. Board members absent: Huddleson Lancaster Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Council Liaison: Susan Kirkpatrick Staff Support Present: Peter Barnes Ann Reichert Paul Eckman, City Attorney Office Minutes of the May meeting were approved as published. Appeal 2028 - 1220 South College Avenue, by Kevin Zdenek, tenant, approved. The variance would increase the maximum height requirement for a 36 square foot freestanding sign at a 7 foot setback, from 13 feet to 15 feet. The variance would allow the current pole -mounted sign to remain in its present location. This appeal was tabled from the May 14, 1992 meeting. ----- Hardship: The petitioner requested a variance on March 12, 1992 to convert the sign to a ground sign and allow it to encroach into the required sight distance triangle. The variance was not approved and the petitioner is now modifying the request. Moving the sign back enough in order to allow the 15 foot height would result in loss of sign visibility due to large pine trees and traffic signs and apparatus. Lowering the sign results in an encroachment into the sight distance triangle. Staff comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this appellant appeared before the Zoning Board in March 1992. He has now changed his proposal. Mr. Barnes reviewed the history of this appeal and the circumstances surrounding this appeal. Kevin Zdenek, tenant, appeared before the Board. He stated this proposal was a solution to the problem. He stated the hardship was natural because of the mature landscaping and particularly the older pine trees. If the sign was moved back, it would be in the middle of the parking lot and parking spaces would be lost. No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board member Anastasio asked Mr. Barnes if this property had enough sign allowance for this size sign. Mr. Barnes stated it did. Board member Gustafson asked Mr. Barnes if there was a requirement for the number of parking spaces needed for a business. Mr. Barnes stated the code only requires two spaces for every three employees. Board member Cuthbertson asked Mr. Barnes how far the sign would encroach if the present code was met. Mr. Barnes stated the entire sign would probably be in the parking area. Board member Gustafson stated he saw a hardship with the limited parking, other signs on College Avenue were closer to the street than this one, this was an attractive sign and he had no problem with it. Board member Perica agreed. Board member Cuthbertson stated if this was a new proposal the Board would look at it differently and probably wouldn't allow it. He felt the hardship was self-imposed. Board member Wilmarth stated she saw no real problem and the other alternatives were worse than this proposal. Board member Wilmarth moved to approve Appeal 2028 for the hardship stated. Board member Perica seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth Nays: Cuthbertson The motion passed. Appeal 2029 1334 W. Oak Street by Tom Nevrivy, owners, approved. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet in order to allow an addition to an existing single family home. The addition will line up with the existing east wall. The house is located in the NCL zone. Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 3 Hardship: The home is an older home. The east wall is already only 4 feet from the lot line. The owners desire to convert an existing back porch into a family room and extend it by 3 feet, lining up with the existing structure. Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained this was an older home in an older part of town. Tom Nevrivy, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated they actually needed to add an additional three feet to the room because of the slope of the roof and to meet code. No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board member Anastasio stated the Board has seen requests like this in the past and he thought it reasonable to add the small portion to the house. Board member Gustafson stated the hardship was the width of the lot in the older part of town. Board member Cuthbertson moved to approve Appeal 2029 for the hardship stated. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nays: None The motion passed. Appeal 2030 - 1137 Riverside, by owner Gene Homolka, approved. ----- The variance.would allow a 20 square foot per face freestanding sign to be located within 15 feet of an interior side lot line. Specifically, the variance would allow a sign for the "Variety Flea Market" to be located within 1 foot from the east lot line. Hardship: The building is set back from the street further than then two adjacent buildings. Therefore, the sign on the building wall is not very visible to motorists. A freestanding sign is desirable; however, the only place to put it is close to the east lot line. Anywhere else would mean the sign would be located in the driveway or behind the parking spaces. Staff Comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 4 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this building is "tucked" in between two other buildings and consequently does not have very much room or visibility. If the appellant was to comply with the sign code, the sign would be in the middle of the driveway. Board member Perica asked Mr. Barnes if the proposed sign would be adjacent to the buildings on either side, or would the sign set out further than the buildings. Mr. Barnes stated the sign would set out further than the buildings. Gene Homolka, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated if he tried to meet the present sign code, the sign would be in the middle of the parking lot, he would lose a parking place and it would be probably be run over. No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board member Anastasio stated he felt the configuration of lot was unusual and the owner didn't have many choices. He was in favor of the appeal. Board member Gustafson stated he also thought the configuration of the lot did cause problems. Board member Perica moved to approve Appeal 2030 for the hardship stated. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson Nays: None The motion passed. Anneal 2031 - 1018 Oak Street by owner Stephanie Schultz, approved. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 1 foot, in order to allow a portion of the rear of the house to be demolished, then reconstructed and enlarged. The home is located in the NCL zone. ----- Hardship: The house is an older building which is currently only 1 foot from the lot line. The owner would like to demolish the porch and build an addition on the back of the house. The addition will line up with the existing west wall and will extend 11 feet further north then the current house. Aesthetically, it will look better to line up the new construction with what already exists. Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 5 ----- Staff comments: The Zoning Board granted similar variances to two properties located across the alley. In 1985, a variance was granted to 1007 W. Mountain to reduce the setback to 2.2 feet, and in 1988 a variance was granted to 1009 W. Mountain to reduce their west setback to 2.8 feet. One letter was received in favor of the application. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this house was located in an older part of town. If this variance was granted the addition would be 1 foot from the property line. Stephanie Schultz, owner appeared before the Board. She stated the house was built in the early teens. The proposed addition would look nicer then what is there now, the house is only 825 square feet now and the addition would add 264 square feet to the house and any addition would be difficult to meet City code. No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board member Cuthbertson stated he had no problem with this appeal. Board member Anastasio stated he agreed. Board member Perica moved to approve Appeal 2031 for the hardship stated. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nays: None The motion passed. Anneal 2032 - 3600 Kingsley Drive by Bartran and Company, approved. The variance would allow a subdivision sign to be 121 square feet instead of the allowed 35 square feet. (The actual size of the letters are 30 square feet, but the size of the wall is 126 square feet.) The sign is the permanent identification sign for the English Ranch Subdivision. Hardship: The actual size of the letters of the sign are 30 square feet. However, the letters are mounted upon a decorative entrance wall structure which is 126 square feet and is considered signage by the Sign Code because it is not a part of a longer fence structure. The owner's hardship is that he is unable to connect this structure to a fence like many other developers have done because the location of the sign and wall is in a storm drainage area which is planned to be landscaped and maintained as usable open space. Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 6 Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this is a new subdivision located near Timberline and Horsetooth. Presently the curb and earth work are being done. Mr. Barnes explained the sign code and the possibilities of putting the sign on a fence is not feasible because of the detention pond. Bill Bartran, developer, appeared before the Board. He stated that Fort Collins residential areas are identified by the names of sub- divisions. Because this area of town has a detention area, fencing in the subdivision is not possible. He stated this sign would be no larger than the other sub -division signs in Fort Collins. No one was present to oppose the appeal. One gentleman was present who was in favor of the appeal but had no comment. Board member Gustafson stated it was a good idea to leave this area open, it would add to the Horsetooth area and he saw no problem. Board member Cuthbertson agreed. Board member Anastasio stated the other signs depicting subdivisions were already in place and set precedent, he favored the appeal. Board member Wilmarth moved to approve Appeal 2032 for the hardship stated. Board member Cuthbertson seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson Nays: None The motion passed. Appeal 2033 - 3626 Silvertip Place by Mr. & Mrs. Greg Zander, approved with condition. ----- The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Antelope Road from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a 13' X 27' sunroom addition to be built onto the south side of the home. The house is located in the RLP zone. Hardship: The owner's desire is to have a room which takes advantage of the southern exposure. In order for the room to be large enough to accommodate furniture and be functional, the addition will encroach into the required setback. Without a variance the room would only be 7 feet wide. ----- Staff Comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 7 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained this house was located on a corner lot and this addition would be on the south side. Board member Gustafson asked Mr. Barnes if this would be qualified as use for natural energy. Mr. Barnes read from the code book the explanation of solar energy systems. Mr. & Mrs. Zander appeared before the Board. They submitted a floor plan of the proposed addition as well as signatures of the neighbors approving the addition. Mr. Zander stated they were concerned about the appearance of the neighborhood, they take pride in their home, they have approval of the neighbors, and the addition would be functional and lower energy consumption. Board member Gustafson asked Mr. Zander if there was a plan to store solar energy. Mr. Zander indicated he had consulted energy businesses, no water tanks would'be installed and this would be a passive solar addition. . No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board member Anastasio stated this room could be considered solar because of the fan system and the sand and cement floor. He also stated this configuration of the lot can be considered a hardship. Board member Gustafson stated this plan was a good one to capture the southern exposure and the configuration of the lot was a hardship. Board member Wilmarth moved to approve Appeal 2033 with the condition that the addition be classified as a solar energy system according to the zoning codes. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth Nays: Cuthbertson The motion passed. Appeal 2034 - 829 South Shields Street by David Massey, owner, approved with condition. The variance would reduce the required landscape parking lot setback along the north lot line from a 5 foot minimum width at any one point to one foot in width, while also reducing the average 5 foot landscape setback along the north lot line to 3 feet. The variance would also reduce the required 5 foot landscape setback along the south lot line to zero feet. The variances are for a retail store/post office located in the BL zone. Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 8 ----- Hardship: The change of use of the property requires compliance with the current code. The city is going to be installing a right turn lane, thus additional right-of-way will be required. Since the building is existing, lost parking can't be replaced elsewhere on the lot, it is important to maintain as much parking as possible. The petitioner proposes to improve the existing landscaping on the lot to the south in order to off -set the requirement for his lot. If the 5 foot is required along the north lot line, then a whole row of parking will have to be eliminated. Likewise the parallel parking along the south lot line would have to be eliminated if the south 5 foot strip is required. Staff comments: Due to the congestion at the corner of Elizabeth and Shields, it is very difficult to enter and exit this property. Ease of internal parking lot circulation due to stacking of vehicles waiting to exit is important to attempt to obtain. The proposed "one-way" circulation helps to achieve this. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the history of this property. Mr. Barnes explained this property has recently changed use to a retail/post office and so therefore the change of use triggers the landscaping. Mr. Barnes explained Shields Street is in the plan for Choices 195 and improvements along Shields street. This property was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy because of the landscaping issue. Owner, Dave Massey appeared before the Board. He stated that location of the lot on Shields is a hardship. Being a post office station as well as retail, one objective is to get customers/cars in and out as quick as possible. Because of the way the parking lot is laid out and the access to Shields, there is no room for stacking of cars. He stated the proposed landscaping will enhance Shields. Mr. Barnes stated the engineering and the traffic departments have reviewed the plans and accepted them. Mr. Massey would have to submit landscape plans for city approval. Board member Wilmarth moved to approve Appeal 2034 for the hardship stated with the condition that the landscaping be completed within six (6) months of the completion of Choices 195 and the stipulations of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy which has been issued. Board member Cuthbertson seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Cuthbertson. Nays: None The motion passed. 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 1992 Page 9 The meeting was adjourned. Robert Gustafson, Vice Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator RG/PB:aer r 6 • fir.• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DUNE 11, 1992 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal 2028. The variance would increase the maximum height requirement for a 36 square foot freestanding sign at a 7 foot setback, from 13 feet to 15 feet. The variance would allow the current pole -mounted sign to remain in its present location. This appeal was tabled from the May 14, 1992 meeting. Section 29-595(c) by Kevin and Ed Zdenek, 1220 S. College Avenue. 3. Appeal 2029. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet in order to allow an addition to an existing single family home. The addition will line up with the existing east wall. The house is located in the NCL zone. Section 29-199(5) by Dr. and Mrs. Tom Nevrivy, 1334 W. Oak Street. 4. Appeal 2030. The variance would allow a 20 square foot per face freestanding sign to be located within 15 feet of an interior side lot line. Specifically, the variance would allow a sign for the "Variety Flea Market" to be located within 1 foot from the east lot line. Section 29-595(d) by Gene Romolka, 1137 Riverside Avenue. 5. Appeal 2031. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 1 foot, in order to allow a portion of the rear of the house to be demolished, then reconstructed and enlarged. The home is located in the NCL zone. Section 29-119(5) by Stephanie Schultz and Jan Watson, 1018 W. Oak Street. 6. Appeal 2032. The variance would allow a subdivision sign to be 121 square feet instead of the allowed 35 square feet. (The actual size of the letters are 30 square feet, but the size of the wall is 126 square feet.) The sign is the permanent .identification sign for the English Ranch Subdivision. Section 29-591(6) by Bartran & Comapany , 3600 Kingsley Drive. 7. Appeal 2033. The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Antelope Road from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a 13, x 27' sunroom addition to be built onto the south side of the home. The house is located in the RLP zone. Section 29-133(5) by Mr. & Mrs. Greg Zander, 3626 Silvertip Place. LI Appeal 2034. The variance parking lot setback along minimum width at any one also reducing the average north lot Line to 3 feet. required 5 foota variances zero feet. located in tie BL zone. 829 S. Shiels Street. 9. other businet. would reduce the required landscape the north lot line from a 5 foot point to one foot in width, while 5 foot landscape setback along the The variance would also reduce the setback along the south lot line to are for a retail store/post office Section 29-493(1) by David Massey,