Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/12/1985S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 12, 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting, of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 12, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Boardmembers Absent: Lieser, Johnson, Szopinski, and Murphy Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Roy, and Ball Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 1985, Not Approved as Published The minutes of the August 8, 1985 regular meeting were not approved because only one board member from that meeting was present. Boardmember Thede made a motion to table the minutes until next month. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1670. Section 118-91(D)(2)(b), 118-91(D)(2)(a) by Bill Neal of Wheeler Realty, Horsetooth and Tradition - Approved with conditions "---The variance would allow two development identification signs for the Four Seasons PUD to be located approximately 700 feet apart instead of the required 1000 feet. The variance 14ould also allow a total of three I.D. signs for the development along Horsetooth Rd., instead of the two allowed by code. ---Hardship pleaded: The owner owns only the land east of Tradition Dr.. In thLs area they are developing more than one housing type and are having as many as fourteen (14) different builders building single family homes. They would like to have one sign to identify the "Village" project, and the other sign for the remaining projects would be used to identify fourteen (14) builders. The owner doesn't have 1000 feet of frontage to be able to meet the code. Staff recommendation: Approval of the request to allow the stgris to be only 700 feet apart. Denial of the request to allow three signs." There were no notices or letters received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes pointed out that the sign code allows for development signs during the construction of the development, two 100 square foot per face signs per each arterial road. The project has two arterial roads bordering the project which means they could have two signs on Shields and two on Horsetooth. They currently have one on Shields and four on Horsetooth. 0 M ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 2 Bill Neal of Wheeler Realty Company, stated that he was not there to request the right to place four signs on Horsetooth Road. He wanted to explain the diversity of ownerships there and clarify their request that they are asking for the right to erect two signs; The Four Seasons sign, and the Village sign within 700 feet of one another. They did not authorize nor do they support the placement of the other two signs. Mr. Neal feels they require separate marketing idenities for the different developments. They are asking for one project sign to represent their fourteen (14) single familiy entities. And a second project sign for the "Village" project itself. Boardmember Dodder asked how long he anticipated the signs being up? Mr. Neal answered that it will take them at least 2-1/2 years. Boardmember Walker wants to know if they have to consider all three signs? Mr. Barnes answered that two are allowed, the third sign, the one on the east end, is not allowed. Boardmember Dodder asked if all fourteen (14) builders want to have separate signs, Bill Neal answered that they all want signs and they want their individual product lines demonstrated. But he has told them as a condition of participating in their marketing program, they can't all have signs. Boardmember Walker comments that there has to be more communication between the individuals involved. He feels that no more than two signs should be allowed. Walker made a motion to approve the request to allow signs to be 700 feet apart, and deny the request to allow three signs and suggest that the parties involved negotiate on this to see if they can consolidate so everyone's needs are being met and still fit within those two signs. Boardmember Thede added an 18 month time limit amendment to the motion. Boardmembers Walker and Dodder disagree with amendment: Boardmember Walker decided not to accept the amendment to his motion. Motion was restated as above without the amendment, and Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1671. Section 118-44(C) by David Farr for Beta Theta Pi, 321 S. Sherwood - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet and the minimum side yard setback from 7 feet to 0 feet for a fraternity house in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This is an existing house on a lot in the old part of town and there is no additional land available to buy. The fraternity will be occupied by seven people. All parking requirements are met. The house meets the setbacks but the deck is right on the property line. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 3 There were no notices returned Two letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes brought to the attention of the Board the zoning petition signed by seventeen (17) people, saying "We the undersigned, living in the area of 321 S. Sherwood, are in agreement that the fraternity, Beta Theta Pi may be zoned R1, multi —family residence, and be allowed to carry out the functions of such an organization." This petition was signed by people who live in the area. It was pointed out that the letter from 516 W. Magnolia against the fraternity staying in the neighborhood, was also a person who originally signed the petition in favor of the fraternity staying in the neighborhood. Mr. Barnes stated that the neighborhood of the proposed fraternity, is a mixed —use neighborhood, consisting of business use, multi —family, and single family. The RH zone does allow fraternities as a use by right. Petitioner David Farr for Beta Theta Pi, 321 S. Sherwood stated that they are a new fraternity on campus, this is their third semester. They were previously residing at 644 Remington, and it was brought to their attention that it was not up to the building and zoning codes for a fraternity, which they were not aware of. Subsequently, parents and general fraternity purchased the house at 321 S. sherwood in the belief that the codes could be met. Gilmore Dutton, national advisor for Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, Oxford, Ohio, spoke in favor of the fraternity, stating that the current membership of the fraternity is ten (10) and that they hope to grow to what their fraternity standards require in membership. Regarding the disturbances mentioned in the letters, no effort had been made to contact the fraternity, or to make any complaint. He feels adjustments could be made quickly. Dutton pointed out that the petition had been signed and hopes had been created for these young men. He assures the residents of the area that they will make every attempt to make the fraternity a viable part of the community as any other member. He asked that they not be sterotyped as the typical fraternity. Boardmember Walker is concerned about the growth of the fraternity, the variance is asking to reduce the lot by half, to cut from 100 to 50. Asked what the future plans of the fraternity were. Dutton's reply, is that the fraternity is looking to stay on the property for maximum of two years, hopeful of creating some equity in this house and purchase a lot on fraternity row, in the meantime the fraternity would like to be allowed a place to meet and grow. There was some discussion of parking stalls, Peter Barnes explained that if they have eleven (11) people living there they will need a total of six parking spaces. Dutton pointed out that they plan to add two parking spaces off the alley. Boardmember Thede brought up discussion about the deck bordering the side of the house, regarding the variance from seven to zero. There was some discussion about the removal of the deck. ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 4 Boardmember Thede pointed out that the fraternity was in a RH density area. John McKinley, president of Interfraternity Council at Colorado State University, spoke in iavor of the fraternity. Mary Knox, 516 W. Magnolia, had submitted one of the letters against the variance, but her husband had also signed the petition in favor of the fraternity; both are now against the fraternity being in the neighborhood. They object to the noise level, and the possibilities of drinking and driving in the area. They feel the fact that the lot being only 50 feet is part of the problem. The Knox home is in an RM zone on Magnolia, which is next to an RH zone, they share the alley with the fraternity. Carlyle Tippetts, 333 Canyon, has the insurance office directly across the street to the east from the proposed fraternity house. His main concern is parking. He feels they have an over impacted area from the standpoint of parking. He submitted a picture of the parking situation. Gilmore Dutton asked the Board if their decision will be based upon the future growth of the fraternity or are we discussing parking as we stand based on the variance? Boardmember Dodder replied that the variance is really for the lot size, 100 feet to 50 feet, side yard setback from 7 to 0 feet, if you can meet the parking requirements today as they are required to be met, then that's fine, in future use, you're going to have to grow with that. David Farr addressed the issue of alcohol by stating that there will be a campaign starting in January of 1986, stating that all student organizations will have to exist without alcohol. He also mentioned that the problems with late night parties, was a victim of Rush, which will last only through the weekend, after that there won't be these type of activities or late nights. Boardmember Walker commented that a fraternity in this zone is allowed if you have a 100 foot lot width, which would allow for a lot more options. He feels that there will be a high intensity use of the property just from people coming and going. The neighbor relations, the noise, and the traffic, seems to reinforce the sterotype of a fraternity already, not to say that there weren't extenuating circumstances. His concern is that the level that they are operating now is reasonable and maybe some of the concerns can be addressed and there may be some improved relations. At this time he would like to put some kind of time line on this with the fraternity expecting to outgrow this facility, there should be some time constraint. Boardmember Dodder stated that while a fraternity is allowed in the RH zone, it does require 100 feet, and even though there is only seven people living there now, it was stated that there would be as many as fifty (50) people there for meetings, he thinks the intensity is too high, even now for the neighborhood. He doesn't think there is anything wrong with a ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 5 fraternity in a RH zone, but he does have a problem with the size of this house, and the size of this lot for the circumstances that are being discussed, even today. Boardmember Walker agrees. Boardmember Dodder made a motion for denial of Appeal No. 1671. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, and Walker. Nays: Thede. Appeal No. 1672. 1940 Larkspur - Tabled. Appeal No. 1673. Section 118-93(B)(4) by Victor Sziden, 1630 S. College Ave. - Tabled. "---The variance would increase the sign allowance for a mixed -use, commercial building from 100 square feet, to 125 square feet. The building is located in the HB zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The owner has vacant spaces in the building, but no signage allowance left. He can't rent out additional space unless the tenants can have a sign. Since the building is two stories, more signage is required than a one story building because there are more tenants, however, a building doesn't get any bonus allowance for having a second story under the sign code provisions. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices returned, and there were no letters received. There was a motion made by Boardmember Thede to table variance No. 1673 until October 10, 1985. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. This variance was tabled until the next meeting, due to a conflict of interest by Boardmember Steve Dodder; whereby disqualifying himself creates the lack of a quorum. Appeal No. 1674. Section 118-95(A) by Gardner Signs, 225 S. Meldrum - Approved. "---The variance would allow a ground sign which is more than 42 inches high and is located closer than 50 feet to the intersection and driveway to be set back zero feet instead of the required 15 feet. The sign is for the Chamber of Commerce building located in the BG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: See owner's letter. In addition, the sign can't be located the required 50 feet from the intersection because the building is built all the way to the property line at that point. Since the sign is actually 20 feet from the curb, the intent of the code is being met. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for the hardship stated." • 0 ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 6 There were no notices returned or letters received. Dick Albrect, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the variance, pointing out that they were enthused about the design of the sign, using an idea that is on the cultural side. The sign will give them the identification that they need. Fred Gardner of Gardner Signs Inc., 900 N. College, said the sign is to be manufactured in such a way to take on the appearance of concrete, it is to take on a sculpted appearance. Dick Albrect pointed out that as he understands it, the city is going to turn Canyon into a parking area. Fred Gardner stated that the sign will be a single face sign. Boardmember Walker asked Mr. Barnes if there were any problems of obstructing a view from traffic? In response, Mr. Barnes replied that he didn't see any when he was out there, although it is a bad intersection to begin with. It is setback far enough so that when the cars are stopped at the stop sign the sign does not come into play at all. If the right- of-way line was only 5 feet like in other parts of town, and they were putting it this close than there could be a problem. Fred Gardner further explained that in the landscaped area around the sign, the intent was to take some small flood lights and illumate the trees around the sign, it is not an internally illuminated sign. There would be externally some splash on it to make a nice effect. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated, Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1675. Section 118-81(F)(1) by Mary Doyle-Geisinhagen, 3806 Tradition - ADDroved. "---The variance would reduce the minimum required front setback from 20 feet to 0 feet for a 6 foot high fence in the RLP zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This is a corner lot and the house is under construction, facing a legal side yard. The prospective owner would like to better utilize what they will consider to be their backyard. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Mark Geisinhagen, husband of Mary Doyle-Geisinhagen, 12122 N. Huron, Westminster, spoke in favor of the variance. Tim Locke, 731 Dennison Ave., said that while he is not opposed to moving • 0 ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 7 the fence part way to the sidewalk, he would like the Board to consider maybe a 4 or 6 foot setback to the sidewalk on the south side of the lot. In response, Peter Barnes clarified that the fence cannot go beyond the property line, and the property line is about 5 feet behind the sidewalk, so there is that built-in requirement. Tim Locke, then stated, that he had no objections. Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1676. Section 118-95(D) by John Yurik, 719 Lemay - Approved. "---The variance would allow a Wendy's restaurant to have two freestanding signs instead of the one which is allowed by code. Specifically, the variance would allow the restaurant to have a freestanding menu board sign located to the rear of the building. ---Hardship pleaded: The restaurant contains a drive-thru window. For efficient traffic circulation it is necessary to locate the menu board sign away from the building. There will be sufficient landscaping around the sign so that it will be screened from the street. "---Staff recommendation: Approval. This same type of variance has been approved for the other drive-thru restaurants in town." No notices were returned. There were no letters received. John Yurik, 14552 W. Archer Ave., Golden, Real Estate Broker; exclusive agent for Restaurants West, Franchise for Wendy's in Fort Collins spoke and said that Pete Salg, Vice President of Operations for Restaurants West is also in attendance. Yurik explained that for Wendy's drive-thru window to perform effectively, the customer has to order in advance of approaching the window. In order to do that, they need to have a freestanding menu board, four or five car lengths from the window itself. This is a single faced sign which would face into the shopping center. They also would adequately landscape it so it would be screened from the street. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve Appeal No. 1676 for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1677. Section 118-96(A) by Jeff Taylor, 1739 S. College - Tabled until the October 10, 1985 meeting. "---The variance would allow a projecting wall sign over private property to be 60 square feet, instead of the allowed 15 square feet per face. The sign is for "The Workout", located in the Fox Shops in the HB zone. ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 8 --Hardship pleaded: The sign is really not a projecting wall sign as intended by the code. It is parallel to the wall of the building and mounted on a rail which is 4 feet from the wall. Therefore, the sign is really more like a flushwall sign, which has no size limitation. This is the only place to put a sign because below the rail is all glass, and the wall above the rail would be used for signs on the top floor. This business is on the bottom floor. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." No notices were returned. There were no letters received. Boardmember Thede made a motion to table this appeal until the end of the meeting due to the fact that the petitioner was not present. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal was tabled until next months meeting, (October 10, 1985) because petitioner had not shown up by the end of the meeting. Appeal No. 1678. Section 118-41(E) by Randy Hall, 730 W. Mountain - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a new, detached garage in the RL zone. The variance would also reduce the side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet. ---Hardship pleaded: There is currently an unsafe one car garage in the back yard. The petitioner would like to demolish the garage and build a new one. Locating the garage in the required location would leave no room for a patio or yard area since the lot is too shallow to provide this area given the location of the house. ---Staff recommendation: Approval of the rear yard reduction to 5 feet if there is no objection from the neighbor to the north. Denial of the request to reduce the east setback. The garage can be moved to the west and the existing curb cut moved to the north to straighten out the drive, thus eliminating the need to have the building so far to the east." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Randy Hall, 730 W. Mountain, spoke requesting a variance on his back line of 5 feet from the normal 15 feet to allow him to put in a patio area between the home and the garage. Because of the nature of the lot there is no privacy being on the corner lot, in addition having the 15 feet setback from the rear line would be virtually useless ground at that point. As far as the side setback, part of the existing structure of the house does setback almost on the east property line as it exists today. • 0 ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 9 Boardmember Dodder asked if the 3 foot is basically aesthetics rather than function in order to line up the garage with the house? Hall's reply, yes, actually he would prefer to have it closer to that side line but he moved it out to the 3 foot line to give a little easement there; but there is a chain link fence dividing the properties in the back there anyway, so it's not changing what's already there. One of the functions he is trying to accomplish is improving his angle of access to the garage from the street. Moving it out another 2 feet would cut down his angle of accessing the garage from the street. Boardmember Walker asked why doesn't he re -align the existing curb cut with the new garage? Hall explained that for the aesthetics of the neighborhood, it's an original curb cut, and it fits in with other driveway accesses in the neighborhood, as well as expense. Also there is the possibility of having to move a large tree that sits on the north side of the driveway. Boardmember Walker said that the rear yard setback is reasonable, however, he doesn't see any reason for the side yard setback, particularly when 2 feet are involved. Walker made a motion to approve the rear yard setback reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet. Denial of the request of the reduction of the side yard setback. Motion failed for a second. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1679. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)[6], 118-81(E) by Steven Slazak, 205 S. Meldrum - Approved with Conditions. "--The variance would decrease the required 5 foot parking lot landscape strip along the north lot line to 3-1/2 feet. The variance would also decrease the required 6% interior landscaping to 4% and eliminate the requirement to provide a loading zone for an office building in the BG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot and building are existing. A 12 foot driveway is required, so there isn't room to provide a 5 foot setback without moving the house. The parking lot is very small, and providing an additional landscape island would result in the loss of needed parking. Since this is a professional office, the largest delivery truck would be a UPS size truck so a large loading zone is not needed. ---Staff recommendations: Approval with the condition that the 5 foot setback along the north lot line be required from the west end of the house all the way to the west lot line." No notices were returned. No letters were received. • ZBA MIWTES September 12, 1985 Page 10 Stephen Slazak, 1713 Essex Drive, stated that what they are trying to do is retain the aesthetic and historic value of the property. They will be converting it to a professional building, strickly office use. The plans call for approximately seven offices, including secretarial stations and conferencing so there really won't be more than nine people in the building. Boardmember Walker made a motion for approval for the hardship stated with the condition that the north lot line setback be 5 feet from the west end of the building to the west lot line, with some appropriate transition through there. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1680. Section 118-82(B)(3) by James French, 220 E. Oak - "---The variance would reduce the side yard setback along Mathews Street from the required 15 feet to 2 inches for a porch cover addition to a church in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The proposed porch cover is needed to cover an entry way in order to solve a drainage problem. The cover would line up with the existing wall of the church so it would not be any closer to the property line than the existing building. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes pointed out that the church has a drainage problem, with water running down the sidewalk into an entrance into their gymnasium, which slopes down. The proposed "addition will line up with the wall of the gymnasium which is within a few feet of the back of the sidewalk. James French, representing the appeal for the Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church said water runs into the door area and down onto a carpeted area in the gymnasium. He said they propose to build a porch like entrance, it will have walls on the sides. It's 7 foot wide, 8 foot tall, 15 feet from the back wall out to the front edge of it. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the appeal for the hardship stated. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1681. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)(6] by Gary Davis, 216 W. Horsetooth - Approved with conditions. "--The variance would reduce the required 15 foot landscape parking lot setback along Horsetooth to 0 feet in certain areas. The variance would also reduce the required 6% interior landscaping to 2-1/2%. These ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 11 variances are required due to the addition of another principal use (video rental) to the Whirlyball Center. Hardship pleaded: The video business uses only 1000 square feet of the total 12,000 square foot building. Providing the required landscaping would result in the loss of another fifteen (15) parking stalls which are critical to the business. The proposal is an improvement over the existing situation. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Mr. Barnes pointed out that the video store added to the Whirlyball Center only accounts for about 1/12 of the floor area of the building, however, it is the addition of an additional principal use of the property which is a change of use and does require compliance with the parking code. The parking lot is pretty free of landscaping, additional landscaping has been proposed, however, it still falls short of the requirement. Gary Davis, General Manager of Whirlyball, stated that the parking lot is marginally adequate for the capacity that they need now. They are proposing to put in a considerable amount of new landscaping, but would like to prevent eliminating too many parking spaces. The building currently has a 24 foot wide grass space between the edge of the building and McClelland Drive. When they converted the skating rink to the Whirlyball Center, they put in new landscaping right on the front side of the building. They are proposing taking a space that is approximatley 20 foot by 45 foot on the corner of the intersection of Horsetooth and McClelland and putting landscaping there. Second, they want to put new landscape around the sign. In addition, internal landscaped islands are being proposed. - Mr. Barnes stated that a specific landscape plan would be submitted, which the City Arborist would review as to species and sizes. Boardmember Dodder pointed out that one of the requirements is 6% landscaping, and that anyone could use that argument, that if you have to put in 6% versus 2-1/2Y, that you are going to lose parking spaces; but when the code was written it stated that people had to have 6%. He would like to know why it is such a hardship to go to 6%? Davis answered that they would have to lose approximatley 15 parking spaces, and it would be a hardship on the video store because there probably won't be adequate parking for people to come into the store and check out and rent video movies. The Whirlyball Center basically utilizes the parking space pretty much to the maximum during the late nights. With the elimination of 15 places, it would probably cause people in the Whirlyball to park on neighboring property or out on the streets, and there really isn't that kind of parking available. Totally they have 56 parking spaces now. It would reduce it to 41. ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 12 Boardmember Walker is concerned about the landscaping along the front. He would not like to compromise on the landscaping strip all the way across because that was the intent of the code, which was to soften the relationship of the parking lot to the road. He would like to see that the 15 foot landscape requirement along Horsetooth Road be upheld. Davis commented that they spent $385,000 on lease hold improvements and equipment and totally redid the outside of the building, totally lined the parking lot, put in new landscaping and are in the same business that they are in right now. The technical reason for them to do new landscaping is because they put in a retail business, actually he feels they have had retail business there anyway. They sold Whirlyball items and have a snack bar, video games, etc., They were surprised that this changed the use of the building, since it is the same business operating under the same corporation. He also pointed out that the aesthetic appeal of that corner compared to a year ago is significantly higher. He feels the proposal that they are making from an aesthetic standpoint from landscaping would be much better than anything in that neighborhood, with maybe the exception of Albertson's Shopping Center. Boardmember Dodder said that he would have to agree with that, but it still is not to what the code says. Boardmember Walker pointed out that he can appreciate that the building has been improved, but that the parking lot is still a sea of asphalt. The need for the additional parking because he has an additional business there, means that he is intensifying the use on the property, and that really becomes an economic hardship that he has a hard time dealing with. Walker feels strongly about that front landscaping and feels it's a reasonable compromise to eliminate 8 stalls on the front, but he's also willing to go with the 2-1/2% variation, which would be somewhere in the middle of the proposal and what the code requires. Mr. Barnes pointed out that this is a situation with an existing building, and an existing parking lot and the existing Whirlyball use. The code is addressed basically to new developments which can build around those things, here there is a situation, where he can't go out and buy additional land to replace the parking he is going to lose, now that we are trying to retrofit the landscaping. Boardmember Dodder asked Barnes what his position is. Barnes responded that one point that was brought up would be to make a continuous 15 foot landscape strip along Horsetooth, and forget entirely about the interior landscaping, which is something which might be considered. Davis would like to know why an economic situation doesn't have a bearing on the business? In response, Boardmember Walker answered that economic hardships are not a legitimate hardship for the Board to consider. Boardmember Dodder added that it is stated that they cannot consider • ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 13 economic hardships when considering an appeal or petition. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance to reduce the interior landscaping to 2-1/2% and deny the variance for the 15 foot landscape parking lot setback along Horsetooth. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker. Nays: Thede. Appeal No. 1682. 1200 Maple - Tabled until October 10, 1985. Appeal No. 1683. Section 118-41(C) 742 Alta Vista by Steve Barbier for Neighbor to Neighbor - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a single family dwelling to be moved onto a lot in the RL zone. --Hardship pleaded: This is an existing lot. The house on the lot is in bad repair and will be demolished. Another house will be moved onto the lot and will improve the block. ---Staff recommendation : Approval." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Steve Barbier, Director of Neighbor to Neighbor, spoke in favor of the variance. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1684. Section 118-81(D)(2)[6] 803 Riverside by Virgil Musil for Total Petroleum - Approved - with condition. "---The variance would reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 1% for the addition of a convenience store to an existing gas station in the C zone. "---Hardship pleaded: Because the pump islands and buildings are existing, and due to the required traffic circulation patterns it is not feasible to retrofit this site with interior landscape islands. The site surpasses the requirements for perimeter landscaping and the petitioner will install some additional shrubbery to offset the lack of interior islands. "---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the petitioner comply with the landscape plan submitted." One notice was returned. No letters were received. 0 ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 14 Virgil Musil, construction manager for Total Petroleum, Denver, spoke in favor of the variance. Proposing to install a small mini-C store instead of the little cashier's booth that they now have at the existing service station. Due to the interior landscaping requirements, they can't find room to put the 6% of interior landscaping, unless they use the area to the side, which he feels serves no purpose to anyone. Boardmember Walker pointed out that the effort shown in the site plan for landscaping, certainly does surpass requirements although they don't have the interior parking area, the situation is flow-thru traffic. The intent shown from the plan is being met. There was some discussion concerning curb -cuts. Mr. Musil will be meeting with Bob Lee to discuss the curb -cuts. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve Appeal No. 1684 for the hardship stated, with the condition that they comply with the landscape plans sumbitted. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1685. Section 118-43(A)(8) by Cathy Chianese for Osprey, Inc., 1715 Remington - Approved. "---The variance would allow a new child care center in the RM zone to be located closer than 1500 feet to another, existing child care center. Specifically, the new facility would be approximately 850 feet from the existing "Kiddie Kollege" at 1640 S. College. ---Hardship pleaded: See petitioner's letter. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. Due to the location of the "Kiddie Kollege" on College Avenue, this new one on Remington should not have any noticeable adverse impact on the neighborhood." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Cathy Chianese for Osprey, stated that through research done by herself on Day Care Centers in the community, has found that there are significant differences between the type of facility they will be proposing on Remington Street and the Kiddie Kollege facility. Osprey owns this piece of property as well as California Plaza, so there is an opportunity for some shared access. People can enter the site thru College and filter through the access way that exists. The site plan that was submitted is a schematic design, and the intention is to show that a facility does fit on this lot, and there is room for adequate parking on site, and there is room for landscaping. If the variance is approved, they will have to submit a detailed plan that will be reviewed by city staff, for adherence to landscaping, access, parking, and curb cuts, etc. There was some discussion about completion date. Chianese stated that they would prefer to have a year before they were required to have a building 0 ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 15 permit. They do not have a specific user in mind yet, although six months is workable as long as it's a building permit, and not completion of the facility. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1686. Section 118-97(H) by Jackie O'Hara for Home Federal Savings, 375 E. Horsetooth, 300 W. Oak, 100 E. Drake — Approved with conditions. "--The variance would allow a yellow ribbon, which is classified as a wind driven sign, to be up longer than the twenty (20) days allowed by code. Specifically, it would allow a yellow ribbon to be attached to the signs at the three Fort Collins offices of Home Federal Savings for an indefinite period — until the return of the seven hostages still held captive in Beirut. ---See petitioner's letter. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that no additional ribbons be attached to the buildings or signs." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes pointed out that the signs are a mixture of pennant and political sign. A political sign under the sign code is allowed to be on property for ninety (90) days, and the Board is allowed to grant a variance to allow a political sign to be up longer than that period of time. Both Mr. Barnes and Steve Roy, City Attorney, agreed that the purpose of the sign falls within the political sign category, in that it is making a statement regarding the return of seven hostages still held captive. Jackie O'Hara, Advertising Director for Home Federal Savings, spoke in favor of the variance stating that she doesn't believe that the ribbons fall under the pennant 'permit as an advertising device, and they have had lots of good morale support from having the ribbons up. Also O'Hara stated that they are only planning to have one ribbon up at each location, except they have two at the Drake and College office, one facing each side. There was some discussion between Boardmember Dodder, and City Attorney, Steve Roy, as to whether or not a precedence was being set by accepting that this is a political sign. They also discussed the fact that they were not setting a precedence that everyone who comes before the Board for an extension gets to have it because it's a political sign. Jenifer Tomack, Home Federal Savings, manages the Marketing Department. She would like to stress that Home Federal's request would be for an indefinite amount of time. This would hopefully be a short time period, when the hostages are returned home. • ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 16 City Attorney, Steve Roy pointed out that an exact amount of time for an extension is needed to be defined in the motion. Mr. Roy also stated that they need to make particular findings under the wordings of this. It need not be that there is a peculiar hardship that attaches to the property. The determination that he feels they have to make is based upon the size and nature of a political sign, whether there is sufficient reason to allow it. They make a finding whether there is sufficient reason for an extension and the exact amount of time and they take into consideration the purpose for which the sign was erected, whether or not the purpose would still be served in the appropriate amount of time. If they decide whether there are minimal negative impacts, they then attach a period of time within which it has to be removed. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance, putting a time limit of a maximum of one year, or until the seven hostages in Beirut are released. And to incorporate Mr. Roy's earlier remarks into this motion, along with restricting that no additional ribbons be attached to the buildings or signs other than which are already existing, and restricted to the same size as they are now. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1687.Tabled until next month. Appeal No. 1688.Section 118-41(E) by Steve Ray, 932 E. Pitkin - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the rear yard setback for a solar addition to a home in the RL zone from 15 feet to 6.5 feet. --Hardship pleaded: The house is in a corner lot and faces the legal side yard. The addition on the west end of the house is, for all intents and purposes the side yard which would only require a 5 foot setback instead of 15. The only other place `to build the solar addition would be on the north side. This would not be feasible. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there is no objection from the neighbor to the west." No notices were returned. One letter was received. Mr. Barnes stated that this variance was just put on the agenda and that all of the neighbors within 150 feet did sign a letter waiving their seven day notice requirement, these people were made aware that they could attend the meeting to speak either in favor or in opposition of this variance. Based on these facts, we did allow this appeal to go on the agenda. Mr. Barnes also pointed out that now there is a specific section in the code regarding hardships relating to energy solar systems. Terry Rowell represented the petitioner, Mr. and Mrs. Steve Ray. Mr. Rowell pointed out that the solar addition will be lower than the existing home is now. It will be passive type solar, it will be 9 feet 9 inches away from the existing property line. • ZBA MINUTES September 12, 1985 Page 17 Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. Other Business: Boardmember Dodder made a motion to table the annual election until next month. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Dodder, Walker, and Thede. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Steve Dodder, Acting Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support . #;,/ /'�' ZONING PETITION We the undersigned, living in the area of 321 S. Sherwood, are in agreement that the fraternity, Beta Theta Pi may be zoned R1, multi -family residence, and be allowed to carry out the functions of such an organization. AF ��7dw= Mi"my, QR - _N _ L'%�/IIIJ►!!.� � ' I, Ili � -�t (6'7 I Sept. 9, 1985 To Whom It May Concern, Although we originally expressed a willingness to let the Beta fraternity move into the house at 321 S. Sherwood we now object strenuously to their residence there for several reasons: 1.) We learned the fraternity plans to put in a parking lot at the back of the house. This would greatly increase traffice in the alley shared by houses on Magnolia and Whitcomb streets. There are -many children in this neighborhood and the alley is frequently used by them as a play area - for walking, biking, etc. You will be reminded, furthermore, that the Crossroads Home for Battered Women is already located on the same block of S. Sherwood as the proposed fraternity house. The children of these women are particularly prone to use the aforementioned alley; these kids are under a tremendous amount of stress and I have often observed them tearing about the alley with no regard for the traffice already frequenting this area. We must be realistic and know that alcohol is used often and heavily by fraternities; drinking and driving and children are simply inappropriate combinations. 2.) The Betas, although polite and friendly young men, have already hosted several loud late parties. My husband and myself have already had to ask them to quiet down, as they disturbed our sleep and that of our children. The existence of a "porta potty" in the back yard (under the window of my daughter's bedroom) does little to reassure me that future parties will be quiet or end at a decent hour. Indeed, the Betas have already sent us a flyer giving dates of September parties and informing us these will run late. The police have already been informed about these parties, the Betas tell us... so what? How does this assure us of a night's sleep? 3.) This is basically a residential neighborhood and we would very much like to see it stay that way. A week's activities at Beta house convince us that the Betas will seriously disrupt the general peace and quiet we have enjoyed thus far at our address. Sincerely, 516 West Magnolia Ft. Collins, CO. 80521 -I,I- 3�: '^' 3. "II r September 7, 1985 PETITION TO: Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Sirs: We, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to granting a variance to Bill Beardslee, Attorney for owners of 1940 Larkspur Drive, Item - Appeal No. 1672, (Section 118-41(A) and Section 118-11 Code of the City of Fort Collins, CO). We feel that if a variance is granted in this case it would set a trend and that it would have a detrimental effect on our family neighborhood lifestyle. We also note that we feel it is in violation of: paragraph 1 (Land Use and Building Types) and paragraph & (Nuisances) of the Declaration of Protective Covenants, applicalbe to Miller Brothers South Foothills Subdivison, Fourth Filing, a portion of the SW � of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6 p.m. City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Sincerely, LARKSPUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1 ���� __ _k4 _ _ Ll Fort Collins Area Chamber of Cc August 8, 1985 SIGN VARIANCE RE: Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce 01 (6'J 9 REQUEST: Allow a ground sign to be located at the right-of-way line that is within 50' of an intersection. REASON: As you can see per the attached design, this sign will act as a sculptured piece of artwork for our front landscaped area. As well, it will provide us identification which we greatly neea for our facility. We have landscaped this area in such a fashion so as to provide a very attractive backdrop for this sculptured piece. If we were to utilize the setbacks required it would position this sign in a most inappropriate spot, which would be blocked by the existing landscaping. As you can appreciate, our property has very severe right-of-way setbacks from the curb, which, when you add a 15' setback, creates a hardship. This 15' setback portion of the code is specified so as to be certain traffic visibility will not be obstructed from any decision point vantage. This proposed location will not block visibility. 225 SOUTH MELDRUM P.O. DRAWER D FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522 (303( 482-3746 NORTHERN COLORADO DIVISION 155 E. Boardwalk Drive Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO P0525 (303) 223-2077 /GSi Osprey, Inc., owner and developer of the proposed Remington Place, requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals vary the zoning requirement (118-43) specifying that day care centers in the R-M zone be separated by a distance of 1500 feet. Osprey desires to build a day care center on the .6 acre site which is located on Remington Street north of east Stuart Street. The property is zoned R-M, medium density residential. The request to vary the distance requirement is prompted by the fact that an existing day care center, Kiddie Kollege, (1640 S. College Avenue) is located 500 feet from the Remington Place property. The zoning requirement that day care centers be separated by a distance of 1500 feet serves two important purposes. First, it assures that the potential impacts of a day care center will be distributed throughout the community and not concentrated in one neighborhood. Second, it encourages day care centers to locate throughout the community according to neighborhood need. The trend, today, is for day care centers to locate in neighborhoods where parents can drop off children on their way to work and where the center can provide a residential setting for the children. The Remington Place site addresses the zoning intent and is in fact an excellent location for a day care center. Unlike the center on College Avenue, Remington Place will orient to the surrounding neighborhood. Its location allows for safe and convenient access from Remington and Stuart Streets without impacting adjacent residential streets. The size of the property will allow for generous setbacks and landscape screening of parking lots and play areas. The neighborhood surrounding Remington Place is in transition. A variety of land -uses exist, including commercial uses that are oriented to College Avenue and Stuart Street and a mix of owner occupied and renter multi -family and single-family residences fronting on Remington Street. A zoning line splits the block with commercial uses on College Avenue zoned H-B, highway business, and residential properties on Remington Street zoned R-M, medium density residential. -1- 1655 During the past five years a number of day care centers have been constructed in the City, setting a number of expectations for design and location. Examples of centers that have been successfully integrated into neighborhoods include; The Children's Workshop (Grant Street and Silver Plume), Children's World (Cottonwood), Daybridge (Stonehenge and Brown Farm) and La Petite (The Pier). Each of these day care centers is adjacent to an established neighborhood and through careful design, have been able to mitigate any potential negative impacts. The centers are successful and are good neighbors for a number of important reasons. Safe and convenient access, landscape screening of parking areas and play lots, adequate parking for employees and users, and a designated drop off area are elements common to each of these centers. The site plan submitted for Remington Place is schematic and is intended to illustrate potential building size, play area, parking lot, circulation system, and setbacks that can be accommodated on the site. If the variance request is approved, a detailed site plan will be submitted to the City for review. That plan will detail specific building size and materials, size of play areas and parking lot, number of children permitted, and landscape treatment. Existing day care centers in Fort Collins are experiencing waiting lists. Osprey believes that the Remington Place site is an excellent location for a day care center and that it will accommodate the needs of the area. Through good design and quality building, the center will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. -2- 0 16IT56 HOMe FC'_O12RRLSRVinG5 August 29, 1985 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Zoning Board of Appeals: Please accept this letter from Home Federal Savings and Iran Association of the Rockies as our request to be included on your September agenda. We are requesting that yellow ribbons, which have been hung at our three Fort Collins locations as a reminder of the seven hostages still held captive in Beirut, remain hanging beyond the 20 day period allowed for a "banner" or "pennant". We hope that you share our belief that this particular project does not fall under an "advertising devise", but is a patriotic statement for the return of the seven hostages. The length of time needed to hang these ribbons is of course unknown at this point, but to this date captivity has exceeded 75 days. All support material is attached to this letter for our request to appeal the banner and pennant regulations. Sincerely,Lc (-ZZG�-Gp�i7�tCl Jackie O'Hara Advertising Director 300 West Oak St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 (303) 4823216 • 100 E. Ora** Rd., Fore Collins, CO 80525 (303) 493 1234 ■ 1101 W. Elizahelh, Fort Collins. CO 80521 (303) 4938733 ■ 325 E. Nometooth, Fort Cothns. CO 80525 (303) 2260138 ■ 725 E. )Ih St., Lovelantl, CO 80537 f303) 6873083 ■ 1521 N. Lincoln, Lovelantl, CO 80537 e303) 6116261 111 435 Mountain Ave., Berthoud. CO 80513 (303) 5323N1 0 300 E. Elkhorn Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517 (3a3) 5862364 Locations of Ribbons: 1) Hane Office 300 West oak 2) University Branch 100 E. Drake 3) Shores Office 375 East Horcetooth, Shores 2 l6��- WYATT AND MARTELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW BILL WYATT DAMES AMARTELL 222 WEST MAGNOLIA STREET . MARTIN J. HEFFERNAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2899 September 9, 1985 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: RAY VARIANCE Ladies and Gentlemen: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 4a4-1112 My wife and I are the owners of the property legally described as Lot 284, University Acres Ninth Subdivision, and commonly known as 1220 Green Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. We occupy the property as our personal residence. Our property lies immediately adjacent to and to the West of the residence of Steve and Jane Ray. It is my understanding that Mr. and Mrs. Ray have applied to the City of Fort Collins for a variance to permit the construction of an addition to their residential dwelling which would extend to the West of the existing residence toward our residence and would encroach upon the set back requirements established by the City of Fort Collins. As the owners of the property to the West of the Ray residence, and I believe the only property owners who would be effected by the proposed addition to the Ray residence, we have no objection to the addition encroaching upon the set back requirements of the City of Fort Collins. We support the granting of a variance by the City of Fort Collins for the construction of the addition proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Ray. Sincerely, James A. Martell JAM: skb 4 //� t,,O, V V l cc: Steve and Jane Ray