Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/12/1992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 12, 1992 Regular Meeting - 8:45am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 12, 1992 at 8:45am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Board members: Perica, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Cuthbertson. Board members absent: Wilmarth Staff Support Present: Eckman, Barnes, Reichert Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Council Liaison: Susan Kirkpatrick Minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, 1992 were approved with correction. Appeal 2020 - 1137 Riverside Avenue by Gene Homolka - approved with condition. The variance would allow the required 15' parking lot landscape strip along Riverside Avenue, which is supposed to be located behind the sidewalk, to be replaced with a 10' landscape strip between the curb and the sidewalk. The variance would also eliminate the required 5' land scape strip along the east line and reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscape islands from 6% to 2%.,The property is changing use from a printing plant to a retail store and this change of use requires compliance with the landscape requirements of the parking code, or the approval of the above listed variances. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The building is existing. Parking has always been provided in the front of the building and along the east side of the lot. In order to comply with the landscape requirements of the code, all the parking would become unusable because there wouldn't be enough room for driveways in and out of parking spaces. Landscaping will be added along the street between the sidewalk and curb in order to upgrade the lot as much as possible. The only way to comply with the code would be to remove part of the building. ti Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 12, 1992 Staff Comments: The Board has previously approved variances which eliminated or reduced the required amount of parking lot landscaping. This has especially been true in instances where the building is already existing and compliance with the code would have required the building to be moved or demolished. This is true in this instance as well. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the appeal. Mr. Barnes commented that the Board may want to make a condition if this appeal is granted to include evergreen shrubs and ground cover in the proposed landscape plan in addition to the deciduous trees shown. Board Chairman Huddleson asked Mr. Barnes if this change of use met compliance to the code previously. Mr. Barnes stated in 1976 when the use changed on the property, to the printing plant, the present parking code was not in effect, therefore it complied with what was in effect at the time. Board member Lancaster asked Mr. Barnes if the landscape plan was to be approved by the City Forester. Mr. Barnes indicated it was. Gene Homolka, 1504 Longs Peak, owner appeared before the Board. He stated the present sign would be removed and landscaping would be done on the present islands. No one was present in favor or in opposition of the appeal. Board member Anastasio asked Mr. Barnes if the access for the driveway met requirements. Mr. Barnes stated it did. Board member Gustafson stated this was an older part of town and had no problem with this appeal. Board member Anastasio stated because of the configuration of the lot and in view of the parking, this was a good proposal. Board member Gustafson moved to approve appeal 2020 for the hardship stated. Board member Lancaster seconded the motion. Board member Anastasio amended the motion to add that the landscaping plan show low growth greenery and ground cover. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Cuthbertson. Nays: None The motion passed. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 March 12, 1992 Appeal 2021 - 419 E. Olive Street, by Mark Archuletta, owner, approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required lot area from 4500 sq. ft to 3829 sq. ft., reduce the required rear setback from 15 ft. to 10.9 ft., and reduce the required rear setback from 15 ft. to 9.7 ft. The variances are requested in order to allow the existing lot on which 301 Whedbee and 419 E. Olive are located to be split into two (2) separate lots. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is currently 50 X 190 and contains two (2) single family dwellings. The owner desires to split the lot, so that each dwelling is located on its own lot, one facing Whedbee and the other fronting on Olive. Due to the location of the existing brick garage it is not possible to split the lot in a manner which would allow each resulting parcel to have 4500 sq. ft. The front and rear setback variances are required because the new lot orientation will change the way the front and rear lot lines are determined. However, the building is existing, so nothing is really changing. Staff comments: As part of the submittal for this appeal, the Board has a plat of the surrounding neighborhood which indicates that a number of corner lots in the vicinity have previously been divided into two separate lots. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this was an older part of town and this situation had come up many times previously. He showed slides of examples of similar situations in this neighborhood. Mark Archuletta, 419 E Olive Street, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated the houses were built in 1936. Other properties in this area have done this. No one was present in favor or opposed to this appeal. Board member Lancaster stated he had no problem with this appeal, all the Board was doing was putting in an imaginary property line. Board Chairman Huddleson stated the uniqueness of the lot, having two homes on one lot and the platting of this area some time ago, makes this a unique situation and he supported the appeal. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 March 12, 1992 Board member Lancaster moved to approve Appeal 2021 for the hardship stated. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Cuthbertson. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2022 1220 South College Avenue by Kevin Zdeneck, tenant, denied. ----- The variance would reduce the required setback for a ground sign from 15 ft. to 13 ft., thereby allowing the sign to encroach 2 ft. into the required sight distance triangle. This variance would allow the current freestanding pole -mounted sign to be converted to a monument sign by closing in the open area under- neath the sign face with material matching the building. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The sign is on the right side of the driveway. The intent of the Code to provide safe sight distance is met since vehicles exiting the parking lot can only turn right, therefore oncoming traffic is coming from the other direction (the left) and is in clear, unobstructed view. The sign poles are existing and have been used to display the sign of previous tenants. The new tenant had a sign fabricated which turned out to be larger than the previous sign. In order to bring it into compliance, the sign must be converted to a ground sign, or moved back 5.5 feet (which would put it in the parking lot), or reduced in size. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the situation, the location, the exit areas and points of access to the property. Board member Gustafson asked Mr. Barnes if the proposed monument was taller than normal. Mr. Barnes said code would allow a 24' monument sign, so this is 9' lower than code allows. Since this business is located on a corner lot, there is plenty of sign allowance. 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 March 12, 1992 Board member Perica asked if it was within the Boards power to condition the petitioner to landscape the area at the corner by the bus stop. Mr. Eckman from the City Attorney's office stated that was not applicable to this appeal and the sign code. He stated the landscaping on the corner in question was not relevant to the sign. Mr. Barnes stated the Board may be able to condition landscaping at the base of the sign. Board member Lancaster asked what the distance was from the back of the sign to the parking lot. Mr. Barnes stated it was 3-3.5 feet. Ed Zdenek, tenant, appeared before the Board. He reviewed and explained the circumstances up to this point with renovating the property and the hiring of a sign company to do the new sign. Mr. Zdenek was under the impression the company hired to do the signage was licensed in the City and knew the codes and ordinances. The new sign is larger and taller than the previous one. He also stated he was under the impression the owner had plans to landscape the corner by the bus stop. He stated no other signage was planned, except for the awning that will be replaced at a later date. Another alternative to the monument sign would be to brick it in rather than use wooden siding to match the building. No one was present in favor or opposition to the appeal. Board member Anastasio stated he agreed with Mr. Eckman's statement that landscaping does not apply to this appeal. He stated the site triangle was not an issue and he had no problem with the appeal. Board member Gustafson stated that if the tenant filled in the entire bottom of the sign it would be even more material and more obstructive, and felt this was not the intent of the code. Mr. Barnes stated the intent of the code was to encourage monument signs by allowing them to be closer to the street than pole -mounted signs. Board member Lancaster stated he had concerns with CSU being opposite the property, Fort Collins High School near the property and he was concerned about the safety of pedestrians using the sidewalk. He saw no hardship that wasn't self imposed. Board member Perica moved to approve Appeal 2022 for the hardship stated. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 March 12, 1992 Discussion on the Motion: Board member Lancaster asked Board member Perica to state the hardship. Board member Perica stated the present sign is in place, the Zoning Code is intended to encourage monument signs and the applicant is trying to comply with code. Board member Lancaster stated he still felt this was a self imposed hardship because of the sign company making a sign that didn't comply . Mr. Ed Zdenek stated he felt the hardship was the sight distance issue, the intent of the Code and the landscape issue. He stated this is a very desirable neighborhood and the intent of Mr. Zdenek is to serve the neighborhood in the best interest. Mr. Zdenek also stated many hours of negotiations and consideration were spent with the City to come up with a viable option. Board chairman Huddleson stated he still had a hard time determining what was the actual hardship. Mr. Zdenek stated parking was a hardship. The building is only half full at the present time, and when it is fully occupied, parking will be a real problem. The landscape also presents a problem, the sign cannot be seen if it is moved back because of the large trees. Board member Lancaster stated he was having a hard time finding something unique about this lot. If the sign was put exactly where it was in the past and the same size, no variance would be needed. Board member Gustafson stated he had no problem with the location of the sign, but did have a problem with filling in the base of the sign. Board member Lancaster called for the question and an end to the discussion. Board chairman Huddleson stated there was a motion on the floor with a second. The motion was to grant the variance for the hardship stated with the stipulation that landscaping be included at the base of the sign. Role call on the question: Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Cuthbertson. Nayes: none Role call on the motion: Yeas: Perica, Anastasio, Gustafson, Nayes: Huddleson, Lancaster, Cuthbertson. There was a tie vote and the motion did not pass and the variance was not granted. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 March 12, 1992 The meeting was adjourned. Chuck Huddleson, Chair ,9, e ✓3,, ,,,, Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator CH: PB:aer