Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/11/1990J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Regular Meeting January 11, 1990 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 11, 1990 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Nelson, Huddleson, Wilmarth and Thede. Boardmembers absent: Lancaster, Lawton, Spight Staff present: Barnes and Zeigler Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 14, 1989, Approved as Published The minutes of the December 14, 1989 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1940. Section 29-203(5) by Vernon and Barbara Bailey, owners. 503 S. Howes - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a new, detached two -car garage in the RH zone. The new garage will replace an existing, detached one -car garage. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The one -car garage which will be replaced is already one 3.5 feet from the lot line. It is in very poor structural condition and needs to be replaced. The owners would like to construct a two -car garage and only the new footings would extend 6 inches beyond the existing concrete slab. Moving the new garage to comply with the required 5 foot setback would mean losing a cherry tree and an apple tree. ---Staff comments: None." One letter was received. No notices were returned. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes pointed out the existing garage on the slides, along with the petitioner's garden spot and said they have built an addition with southern exposure and a bay window. Petitioner Barbara Bailey told the Board she would like to upgrade the existing garage. It's condition has deteriorated to the point where water seeps in. They would like to use the existing foundation. She said Weitzel Excavation brought in dirt and put in a driveway and five off street parking places when the u ZBA Minutes January 11, 1990 Page 2 addition was built. There was no one present to speak for or against the variance. Boardmember Nelson thought the hardship was self imposed and the most reasonable solution would be to place the garage somewhere else on the lot and then a variance would not be needed. Mrs. Bailey said they had spent $2200 to put in the garden spot and don't want to ruin it. She asked Mr. Nelson where he would suggest locating it. Peter Barnes said the addition had southern exposure and placing the garage in any other location might ruin the solar exposure. Boardmember Thede saw no problem with the variance request and thought it would be in keeping with the neighborhood, especially since the adjacent neighbor has no building located next to the proposed garage. Boardmember Huddleson asked what the hardship would be. Ms. Thede said the floor is already poured and they want to use it. She also thought certain locations could cause a safety hazard. Mr. Nelson reiterated the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Wilmarth asked if the petitioner would need a variance if replacement of the garage was the same size as the existing garage. Mr. Barnes said a variance would be needed either way. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance. The hardship is that no future expansion or remodel can be done without a variance because of a pre-existing condition. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Huddleson, Wilmarth, Thede. Nays: Nelson. Motion carried 3-1. Appeal #1941. Section 29-595(H) by Paul Morrissey of Gardner Signs, 2507 S. Shields - Approved "---The variance would allow two freestanding signs on the property instead of one, even though the lot has only one street frontage. Specifically, it would allow a 30 square foot menu - board sign in addition to the freestanding identification sign for a new Burger King restaurant. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: To effectively work as a drive -through service it is necessary to have a menu board for those customers. There is also the need for an identification sign for the business which is also a freestanding sign. See petitioner's letter for additional hardship statement. i 0 ZBA Minutes January 11, 1990 Page 3 ---Staff comments: up restaurant. requests." This is not an unusual request for a drive - The ZBA has granted the other variance No notices or letters were received. Peter Barnes said the sign code does not exempt menu boards. It allows one free standing sign per street frontage. Burger King is proposing one main identification ground sign on Shields plus the menu board. An Amoco station will be located on the corner. Mr. Barnes said there is only one street frontage for Burger King. He showed pictures of other fast food restaurants which have been granted variances for menu boards: Wendy's on S. College, McDonald's W. Elizabeth, Taco Bell, McDonald's S. College, Burger Inn - N. College. He explained the McDonald's at College & Harmony is fronted by three streets, therefore no variance is needed. Mr. Barnes reiterated the fact that the variance is requesting two free standing signs. He said the menu board is not visible from Shields St. but is visible from the property line. The petitioner, Paul Morrissey with Gardner Signs, thought Mr. Barnes had covered most everything. He did want to point out he didn't feel the menu board fell into the sign code. It is simply an aid for customers, not intended for advertising purposes. He said the sign will be bermed and screened to hide visibility from the street. There was no one in the audience to speak for or against the variance. Mr. Nelson said they were not considering a variance for a menu board, the Board should be considering a variance for two signs. Theoretically, the menu board could be the one free standing sign. He agreed with Mr. Morrissey when he stated the menu board should not be considered a sign, but rather an aid to customers. He feels the sign has been installed tastefully and there is no problem in approving the variance. Boardmember Wilmarth asked if the applicant had been notified that a variance would be needed in the PUD process. Mr. Barnes said it is stamped on the plans that all signs must conform to the sign code. Boardmember Huddleson still questioned whether there is a hardship or merely a precedence has been set in the past. Mr. Barnes responded that both are true. It is unfair when competitors have been granted a variance for the same thing and the hardship is they are not building on a corner lot. The business is clearly at a disadvantage. ZBA Minutes January 11, 1990 Page 4 Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the main identification sign and the menu board are •located as stated on the PUD. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Nelson, Huddleson, Wilmarth, Thede. Nays: None. Motion carried 4-0. Peter Barnes reminded the Board a breakfast meeting will be held prior to the next meeting in February. The breakfast will begin at 8:00 a.m. followed by the meeting at 8:45 a.m.. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Charles Huddleson, Vice -Chairman 1 1 Peter Barnes, Staff Liaison