Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/14/1988ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 14, 1988 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 14, 1988 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Boardmembers Absent: Coleman. Staff Present: Fernan, Goode and Eckman. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 9, 1988, Approved as Published The minutes of the June 9, 1988 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1878. Section 29-1 (definition of "Lot"), by The City of Fort Collins, 3036 East Drake - Approved. ---The variance would allow a parcel of land having no frontage on a public street to be classified as a legal lot. The code requires that a lot have a least 20 feet of frontage on a public street. The lot is the site of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant #2. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is a railroad right-of-way separating this lot from Drake Road, therefore, there is no land available to buy which would enable the property to have the required 20 feet of frontage since Drake Road is the only public street near the property. The City is going to build a new building on the property and that requires the property to be platted as a subdivision. ---Staff Comments: None" No notices were returned. No letters were received. City Zoning Inspector Anne Fernan spoke regarding the variance. She stated that this parcel of land is located at the dead-end of East Drake Road. A railroad right-of-way separates this parcel from the public street. A variance is required because it is impossible for this property to comply with the Code that requires 20 feet of frontage on a public street. Specifically, the variance would allow this parcel to be classified as a legal lot. The existing water treatment plant on this parcel was built prior to the properties annexation into the city limits. Current Code requires that no new structure be allowed to be built upon a parcel unless it is part of an approved subdivision. Additionally, if this variance request is granted, the petitioner will proceed with the subdivision process. Once the subdivision is approved, a building permit can be issued for the proposed building. ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 2 Cliff Hoelscher of the City of Fort Collins appeared to speak in favor of the variance. The City water department proposes to build an 8,000 square foot maintenance facility on the west side of the lot. A right-of-way agreement exists between the City and the railroad to access the site off of Drake Road. Ms. Fernan added that this parcel is located in the IG zone, and the proposed building is a permitted use. No lot area setbacks are required in the IG zone. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship being the configuration of the lot which makes it impossible to comply with the Code. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1879. Section 29-133(4), by Larry Stevison, 1305 Whedbee -Approved. --The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet for a new, detached two -car garage in the RL zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. --Staff comments: None" One notice was returned. "July 8, 1988 We have no objection to the granting of the requested variance. Mrs. George T. Laughlin, II 1301 Whedbee Fort Collins, CO 80524" "June 23, 1988 The following petitioner's letter was received. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We are preparing to build a 20' x 24' detached garage to the rear of our property at 1305 Whedbee Street. Because of the placement of a number of trees on the property, many of which are quite old, and other spacing problems, the best placement of the proposed garage appears to be near the rear of the property, detached from the main house. I have already been required to remove two trees for an entrance to the garage, but I'm trying to save a third tree (marked on your plot plans) because leaving that tree and maintaining a fifteen foot setback would not allow sufficient clearance for the southeast corner of the garage. I am therefore requesting a variance from the required 15 foot setback to a 12 foot rear yard setback. Since this home is in an older neighborhood, there are a number of non -conforming uses up and down the alley on which this garage would be placed. Most of the garages and storage buildings have zero setbacks as they were constructed a number of years ago. 9 ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 3 In our case,. we are asking for only a three foot variance from the required fifteen foot rear yard setback so that the garage can be properly placed at the rear of the property without severely impacting the natural vegetation, neighborhood, or city Code. We hope you will give our request favorable consideration. Very truly yours, Larry M. Stevison 1305 Whedbee Fort Collins, CO 80524" Larry Stevison stated that the existing house was built in the 1940s and does have an attached garage, but it is too small to accommodate a modern vehicle. Therefore, he proposes to build a two -car garage on the southwest area of the lot. He will meet the required five foot side yard setback, but is requesting to place the garage 12 feet from the rear yard setback, opposed to the 15 foot required rear yard setback. The garage will be accessed from the alley. An existing storage shed is located on the southwest corner of the lot with zero setback. The petitioner intends to keep the existing shed. All Boardmembers felt that the variance request was reasonable and quite common, especially in the older part of town where it is somewhat difficult to comply with current codes because of narrow lot widths. A motion to grant the appeal was made by Boardmember Lancaster for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Walker. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1880. Section 29-133(4), 29-133(5), by Don Barrett, 820 West Mulberry - Partial Approval. —The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet, and the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet for a new, detached two -car garage in the RL zone. The garage will replace a previously existing garage which was destroyed by fire. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The previous garage had the same setbacks as the proposed garage. The code allows the garage, which was a nonconforming building, to be rebuilt to its original location and size without a variance if it is destroyed by fire. However, the owner desires to build the new garage in a different configuration and size which will be more functional and at the same time will be no closer to the rear and side lot lines than the previous structure was. ---Staff comments: None" There were no notices returned. No letters were received. ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 4 Don Barrett addressed the Board regarding the variance and stated that the existing garage which is a 39 foot long, end -to -end, two -car garage is to be demolished because it has been deemed structurally unsafe due to fire damage. The existing garage has no side yard setback, and a 12 foot rear yard setback. He proposes to build a 22 x 28 foot, side -by -side, two -car garage with the same setbacks. The roof line, siding and shingles on the proposed garage will be similar to the existing house on this lot. Anne Fernan interjected that the code regarding non -conforming buildings states that a non -conforming building can be restored but that it must be restored exactly to the configuration that existed at the time of damage. The petitioner wants to change the size of the garage, and change it's configuration to be more convenient for himself. The Board agreed that the configuration of the existing garage is outdated and that a side -by -side garage would be a practical improvement. A motion was made by Boardmember Thede to grant the variance for a zero side yard setback. It was noted that the zero setback will not cause a maintenance or fire hazard since the garage will abut the alley rather than another property. Additionally, the motion denied the request for the rear yard setback. The Boardmembers felt that the 22 x 28 foot garage, by standard, is oversized. They felt that the hardship for the variance for the rear yard setback to accommodate the oversized garage was self imposed. A second to the motion was made by Boardmember Walker. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1881. Section 29-178(4), by John and Melanie Launer, 710 Sycamore - Approved. --The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a new, detached one -car garage in the RM zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is very narrow and small, and there are a number of other structures, trees, and other amenities present which would make the usable yard area very small if the garage met the required setbacks. The property currently has no off street parking area, and there are many other detached garages along the alley which don't comply with the setbacks. The petitioner desires to be able to do the same. ---Staff comments: None" Three notices were returned. No letters were received. Anne Fernan stated that the petitioners propose to build a 12 x 24 foot garage at the rear of this small and narrow lot, and are requesting a variance for a 5 foot rear yard setback instead of the required 15 foot rear yard setback. The garage will meet the 5 foot side yard setback. Alleys border the lot on the east and north, access into the garage will be from the alley on the north. A concrete driveway is also proposed. John and Melanie Launer feel that a legitimate hardship exists. To comply with the code would place the garage 15 feet into the yard and would reduce the size of their usable yard to an unacceptable size. They feel that the variance request to allow a 5 foot setback is a reasonable one. • 0 ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 5 Currently there are seven existing non -conforming garages within the immediate area of their property, five of these are at zero setback. A petition was circulated to the adjacent property owners within 150 feet of this property and nine signatures for approval of the variance were secured. (See attachment). Boardmember Walker commented that the purpose of the Code is to maintain some sort of commonality within a neighborhood, but in this case the Code is contrary to its intended purpose. The Boardmembers unanimously agreed that the narrow lot size is a common hardship in this part of town. Additionally, in this case the straight -on access from the alley won't create a problem in regard to maneuvering a vehicle in and out of the garage. A motion to grant the variance was made by Boardmember Thede and seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1882. Section 29-133(4), by John S. Benjamin, 825 Laporte Avenue - Approved. --The variance would reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 4.5 feet for a sunroom addition to an existing single family dwelling in the RL zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: This portion of the existing dwelling is over 50 years old and was built with only an 8 foot setback. The petitioner desires to add the small sunroom in order to give light and air to an otherwise dark, windowless kitchen. This is the only practical place to locate the sunroom. ---Staff comments: None." No notices were returned. The following letter was received: "July 7, 1988 Dear Mr. Barnes: Regarding the proposed zoning code variance for John S. Benjamin for his property at 825 Laporte Avenue: I do not object to the variance requested. Sincerely, Thomas E. Aurand Property Owner 816 Laporte Avenue" Anne Fernan stated that the Code requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. In this instance the rear of the existing building abuts the alley. The petitioner is requesting a 4.5 foot rear yard setback to construct a 8 x 4 foot sunroom addition to the south side of his residence. It was determined through discussion by the Board that the alley that abuts this property is wide enough to provide adequate access for fire equipment. ! • ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 6 It was also noted that the southern exposure would be the only practical location to build a sunroom on this particular lot. The Boardmembers agreed that the configuration of the existing house on this lot creates a legitimate hardship for any type of modification. A motion was made by Boardmember Lancaster to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal # 1883. Section 29-591(6), 29-595(a), by Kevin Mielbeck of ZVFK Architects, NW corner of Brittany and South Lemay - Partial Approval with condition. --The variance would reduce the required setback from 15 feet to 0 feet for a ground sign which has no air space and is located within 50 feet of an intersection. The variance would also allow this subdivision entrance sign to be located at a location other than at the entrance into the subdivision and to allow the sign to be 57 square feet instead of the required 35 square feet per face. The project is located in the RLP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See attached letter. Additionally, the proposed site of the sign is part of the Master Plan and the proposed second phase of the Brittany Knolls Planned Unit Development. --Staff comments: This is similar to other variances where the entrance of the subdivision is quite a distance from the major street. Due to the topography and the curving street, a sign at the entrance to the subdivision would not be visible from Lemay. The development is entitled to one 100 square foot temporary development sign which would be located along Lemay and would not require a variance. The Board may want to consider placing some conditions on any temporary development sign a developer wants to install if the variance for the size is granted." No notices were returned. One letter, prepared by the petitioner, is attached. Anne Fernan spoke briefly to inform the Boardmembers of the Code requirements for the variances requested. G. R. McIntyre of MSP Properties appeared to speak in favor of the variance. The development company that he represents proposes to construct a "community identification" sign for the Brittany Knolls Subdivision at the corner of South Lemay Avenue and Brittany Drive. A variance is required to locate this sign at a location other than at the entrance into the subdivision. The legal entrance into the subdivision is considered to be on Brittany Drive and either Westbourn Circle or Edgeware Street; the code allows one identification sign per entrance. The proposed sign is part of the Master Plan and the proposed 2nd Phase of the P.U.D.. Therefore, if the 2nd Phase were to be developed before the 1st Phase, the variance would not be required because South Lemay Avenue would technically be considered a legal entrance to the subdivision. ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 7 The petitioner feels that if the community identification sign is located in Phase 1, (on Brittany, and either Westbourn or Edgeware) a hardship would exist for future residents and visitors of the subdivision because the location is not visible from South Lemay which is a heavily traveled arterial street. He feels that the one proposed sign at this location will be much more visible than the two allowed signs located within the subdivision. The petitioner is also requesting that the proposed 72 inch tall ground sign be allowed to be built on the property line. The sign will set approximately 9 feet behind the 7 foot sidewalk that runs along South Lemay. The Code requires that a sign in excess of 42 inches in height, and within 50 feet of an intersection be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line. The petitioner argued that because this is a P.U.D., the suggested placement of the street trees and landscape required along South Lemay and Brittany will block visibility of the sign. He believes that the topography, which is sloping terrain, is also a hardship. Another issue of this variance is to allow the sign to be 57 square feet instead of the required 35 square feet per face. Ms. Fernan clarified the calculation procedure regarding ground signs for the Boardmembers. She explained that for ground signs the Code requires the area of the base that exceeds one -and -one-half times the area of the face be counted as part of the sign allowance. In this case, the sign face is actually 9 x 3.6 feet. The petitioner stated that the proposed sign is actually two elements; a sign enclosed within a brick wall. The sign will be built into the slope with the wall serving as a retaining wall. The petitioner believes this to be the minimum size to provide good visibility for passing motorists. Lengthy discussion between the Boardmembers revealed acceptance to allow the request for the subdivision identification sign to be placed on South Lemay. All of the Boardmembers agreed that the hardship was evident. However, the majority of the Board voiced their concern over the height of the proposed sign. The concern was that if the sign were placed closer than allowed by the Code to a major arterial it would create an obstruction of traffic and a potential for traffic safety. It was noted, that if the sign were to comply with the Code (not in excess of 42 inches in height), the sign wouldn't require a 15 foot setback, therefore, the Board felt that the hardship was self imposed. Because the development is in the early stages of construction, it is felt that the petitioner could resolve the issues without the need for variances to the Code. A motion was made to allow the subdivision identification sign to be placed at a location other than at the entrance into the subdivision. The Board is aware that the Code would entitle the petitioner to place one additional identification sign on the north side of the development along South Lemay Avenue when the 2nd Phase is started, therefore the motion includes the stipulation that only one identification sign be allowed along the right-of-way on South Lemay. The variance will also allow the sign to be 57 square feet instead of the required 35 square feet per face. However, the request to reduce the required setback from 15 feet to 0 feet for a ground sign which has no air space and is located within 50 feet of an intersection was denied. Yeas: Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nelson. Nays: None. ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 8 Appeal # 1884. Section 28-595(a), by Dan Jensen, 2601 and 2607 York- shire - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot setback to 9 feet for two ground signs which are located within 50 feet of an intersection. The signs are permanent entrance signs into the Quail Hollow Subdivision in the RP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The signs were constructed about a year ago and the setback deficiency was not noticed until the Zoning Office inspected the signs. The owner had staked the location of the signs at a 15 foot setback for his concrete con- tractor, but evidently the contractor put the sign in the wrong spot and this was not discovered by the owner. The signs present no site distance problems. ---Staff comments: None." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Dan Jensen provided petition signed by owners in Phase I speaking in favor of the variance. Anne Fernan stated that the Code allows one identification sign to be located at the entrance of each phase into the subdivision. In this case, there are two phases of the development, therefore two signs are allowed for the entire subdivision. A variance was granted in August, 1987 to allow the two subdivision identification signs to be located at the one main entrance of the first phase into the Quail Hollow Subdivision. The signs had already been installed prior to the approval of the variance request. The petitioner is before the Board for the second time to request a variance to reduce the required 15 foot setback to 9 feet for the two existing signs. A setback defi- ciency was noticed when the zoning office inspected the signs. To comply with the Code, the signs will need to be setback an additional 6 feet. Dan Jensen told the board that the problem evolved when his concrete contractor measured from the back of the walk instead of the property line. Mr. Jensen feels that the signs pose no sight problems for traffic and offered to answer any questions the Board had. Boardmember Walker asked if this project had required a previous var- iance. Mr. Jensen said that this was correct. One sign is allowed per phase and in order to get two signs with Phase I , they discon- tinued signs for the second phase. Boardmember Thede asked if both signs are improperly located. Dan Jensen confirmed this. Boardmember Walker asked the petitioner if he had any problem with correct location of the signs originally. The petitioner responded that he had no problem with proper location. It wouldn't have made 0 ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 9 that much difference. With the radius, it doesn't push it back that much farther. The radius decreases it so that when you measure it, you can be off just a couple of feet and it will move it closer just because of the turn of the radius. The only solution is to remove the sign and call it a fence, but the petitioner hates to lose the hand carved sign. Boardmember Nelson pointed out that his project has been plagued with problems from the beginning. First the contractor installed the signs without a permit, then two signs were erected at the subdivision entrance instead of the one sign that was allowed, and now a setback deficiency has been noticed. Dan Jensen stated that the signs were shown on the landscape plans that were submitted to the City prior to development of this project. He thought that the signs had been approved as shown and was not aware that a permit was needed. He was also unaware that a setback defi— ciency existed until he was notified by the City Zoning Office. Anne Fernan noted that it is routine to mention that all signs must comply with the sign code prior to Planning and Zoning Board approval. Boardmember Lawton said that inaccurate information had been submitted for the variance that the Board granted last August. It is now evi— dent that the signs didn't comply with the 15 foot setback requirement at the time of the variance request, even though plans that were pro— vided by the petitioner showed the signs to be in compliance of the Code. Mr. Jensen said that the distance shown, on the plans at the time he applied for the original variance, reflected a fifteen setback, but he hadn't measured it on site. He pointed out that unless you would mea— sure it, it would not be known that it wasn't correct. Therefore he submitted the plan, as he considered it, correct. The Board questioned the distance from the corner of the house to the sign. Mr. Jensen guessed twenty to twenty—five feet. The main concern of the Board was lack of a legitimate hardship. All of the Boardmembers felt that the situation was caused because of a construction error. Boardmember Walker felt that the City was being asked to absorb costs that are the responsibility of the petitioner. He felt that it was inappropriate for the Board to grant a variance to rectify the problem. Additionally, Boardmember Lancaster added that to grant this variance, after denying the previous variance request, would be inconsistent. He noted that the setback requirements in both appeals were identical in nature. Boardmember Thede was concerned that the Board would lessen it's credibility if issues of this type are allowed to be considered. Boardmember Walker made a motion to deny the variance for a self imposed hardship. Boardmember Nelson ZBA Minutes July 14, 1988 Page 10 seconded the motion. Yeas: son. Nays: None. Other Business Thede, Lawton, Walker, Lancaster and Nel- ---Election of interim vice—chairman. The Boardmembers decided not to elect an interim vice—chairman at this time. chairman Lawton stated that unless a very unusual circumstance arose that he would be available to attend the two remaining meetings until the annual meeting in September when the regular election is held. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Dave Lawton, Chairman Anne Fernan, Zoning Inspector • LAUNER PETITION John and Melanie Launer, residing at 710 Sycamore, have.applied for a waiver of existing variance in order to construct a garage at the rear of their property. The current variance states that a garage must be constructed 15 feet from the rear of a property. The Launers wish to waive the current variance and construct their garage, accessible from. -the alley,.with a rear variance of 5 feet. A 15 foot rear variance would diminish the outdoor living space to an unacceptable level and eliminate the available recreational space. This would be a serious detriment to the Launer's quality of living! I own property within 150 feet of the Launer property at 710 Sycamore and I have no objection to them building a garage at the rear of their property, accessible from the alley, with a rear property line variance of 5 feet. ZZ 1 or-P4�? J oS ru. LoO'Wis 10 am Brittany Knollls Entry Sign Variance Request: 1. Relocate sign to northwest corner of Lemay Ave. and Brittany Dr.. 2. Place sign closer than 15' from the property line for a sign higher than 42" above the street grade. 3. Increase size from 35 square feet to 57 square feet. Hardship Pleaded: I. 1The standard location for the sign at Brittany Drive and either Westbourn Circle or Edgewood Street would not be visible to the - passing motorist as Brittany Drive is currently undeveloped and all traffic passing the site passes on either Trilby Road or Lemay Ave. 2. The regrading of the site necessary for residential development creates a hardship with regard to location of the sign. If it were located the required distance from the property line it would be located approximately 5 feet higher on the slope. Proposed street trees along Lemay Ave. would block the visibilty of the proposed sign: I ZVFK architects/planners. eleven old town square, suite 200, tort coltins, co. 80524 use. telephone 303193-4105 PETITION Dear Quail Hollow Home Owner, The two Quail Hollow entry signs were mistakenly set too close to the sidewalk by approximately 5 feet. By signing this petition you are stating that you have no objection to the location of these two signs. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE .i O,/'�/ ✓/N. '_! • /2�.2� 02(1 >`�'// o'Y.� a af YYJJz/"iS•ti / L // ///. / J /r/ ce. c cuff- (03/ gam �2 al. 311�m i2E cx• ,Z 6 3.7_ r 0 PETITION Dear Quail Hollow Home Owner, The two Quail Hollow entry signs were mistakenly set too close to the sidewalk by approximately 5 feet. By signing this petition you are stating that you have no objection to the location of these two signs. NAME e"OL gmvrzv-S ADDRESS SIGNATURE Wtu- 01 ALA' Lin �2 PETITION Dear Quail Hollow Home Owner, The two Quail Hollow entry signs were mistakenly set too close to the sidewalk by approximately 5 feet. By signing this petition you are stating that you have no objection to the location of these two signs. NAME Jj ADDRESS SIGNATURE M UT 2i' l PETITION Dear Quail Hollow Home Owner, The two Quail Hollow entry signs were mistakenly set too close to the sidewalk by approximately 5 feet. By signing this petition you are stating that you have no objection to the location of these two signs. NAME ADDRESS U ° PETITION Dear Quail Hollow Home Owner, The two Quail Hollow entry signs were mistakenly set too close to the sidewalk by approximately 5 feet. By signing this petition you are stating that you have no objection to the location of these two signs. G i ? MnTION v Dear Quail Hollow Home Owner, The two Quail Hollow entry signs were mistakenly set too close to the sidewalk by approximately 5 feet. By signing this petition you are stating that you have no objection to the location of these two signs. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE (T r�� K; ,, .�A.),J1