Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/09/1988ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 9, 1988 Regular Meeting — 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 9, 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, Barnett, Lawton and Walker. Boardmembers Absent: Coleman, Nelson and Lancaster. Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 12, 1988, Approved as Amended Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 20, 1988, Approved as Published Appeal #1870. Section 29-133 (5), 29-133 (4), by Ron Baker, 330 S. Grant —Approved with conditions. ---The variance would reduce the minimum sideyard requirement from 5 feet to 0 feet for an addition to an existing garage in the RL zone. The variance would also reduce the rear setback for the addition from 15 feet to 11 feet. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to add on to an existing non —conforming garage that was built at zero setback between 1910 and 1915. To offset the addition the required 5 feet seems unnecessary and would not look as clean architecturally." ---Staff comments: None There were no notices returned. One letter was received. ZBA Minutes June 9, 8 • Page 2 June 9, 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins Dear Sirs, As neighbors directly north of the Bakers, we have no objections to their garage plans. We support their appeal for a variance to allow construction of their garage with no setback. Sincerely, Cathy S. Wilson Dave Wilson 326 S. Grant Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, spoke regarding the variance. The property is a corner lot in the older part of town, the detached garage to be added onto was built with zero setback in the rear and is built right on the alley. The north side of the existing garage is also right on the property line so the present setbacks on this building are zero on the north side and zero in the rear, which is the east lot line. The proposal as described would be to add onto the west side of the garage and convert this to a two —car garage. All new construction must comply with the requirements of the code, which in this case is the setback requirement. It is proposed to line the garage up with the existing wall on the north lot line, so therefore the request for zero setback. The rear setback is not quite as obvious, given the fact that the existing garage is going to be between the new construction and the rear lot line. Regardless of that fact any new walls still have to meet the 15 foot rear setback requirement; therefore, an additional request would be to reduce that 15 feet down to 11 feet. Ron Baker appeared to speak in favor of the variance. He has owned this property since 1978 and in that time has done various improvements to the property. He came before the Board last year to request a variance to allow an attached garage be built on the property, but has changed his mind about building it because it would ruin the architectural charm of the house and also because a neighbor had shown concern over light blockage to their living area from the attached garage structure that was proposed. Since that time, the petitioner has reroofed the existing detached garage and installed an automatic garage door opener and is presently utilizing the structure. The petitioner proposes to add onto this existing structure in such a way that will be consistent with what presently exists by matching the gingerbread and roof line of the house. He feels a particular hardship to comply with the required setback because the existing structure is consistent with other garages in the neighborhood, and feels that moving the garage inside the lot will disrupt the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. It is also proposed to install a curb cut for direct access into the garage, presently access to the garage is from the alley. ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 • Page 3 The Boardmembers were concerned with the height of the roof line, but the petitioner pointed out --through photographs shown to the Board-- that the proposed 17' roofline is consistent with other houses in the neighborhood, and with the age of the house. A motion was made by Boardmember Thede to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the structure meet the elevation plans submitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Barnett. Yeas: Thede, Barnett and Lawton. Nays: Walker. Appeal #1873. Section 29-493 (1), 29-493 (2) (f), by Steve Ryan, 602 S. College — Approved with conditions. ---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot landscape strip along College Avenue to 0 feet, the required 10 foot landscape strip along Myrtle to 5 feet, and reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscaping from 6%, to 3.6% for a change of use from rental car office to rental car office with automobile repair. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The code requires the parking setbacks to be measured on the interior side of the sidewalk. This property has landscaping between the curb and the walk, so the intent is met. The site is very small and the buildings are existing. Putting additional landscaping in the interior would present difficulty in circulation and access due to driveway widths being narrowed. A similar variance was approved in 1986 for the change of use from gas station to office, now the petitioner, by having auto repair with the office, is changing the use once again. The recently installed landscaping has greatly added to the appearance of the property. ---Staff comments: The proposed variance would leave the property exactly as it now is. The petitioner worked with the City Arborist in coming up with the landscape plan for this small site." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administer, Peter Barnes, gave a brief explanation of the recent history of this site. This property is on the corner of South College and Myrtle, in 1986 the property owner came before the Board and requested a variance very similar in nature to this request to reduce landscaping requirements. The owner at that time had a change of use from the previous gas station use to a bus depot/office combination; a change of use requires a certificate of occupancy and requires compliance with the code. The tour —bus depot moved in and was in operation for only a few months, they started to upgrade the site but only got as far as removing the concrete between the curb and sidewalk, and then moved out. The new tenant, Steve Ryan, opened up a rental car office which under the terms of the previous variance was a permitted type of use, so he was not required to come back before the Board for the rental car office use. Mr. Ryan went ahead and completed the required landscaping, he worked with the City Forester on getting the details worked out on this particular site, he now desires to have auto repair in the two existing bays that used to be auto repair with the gas station. This is still considered a change of use because the auto repair use has long since been abandoned, auto repair was not a use under the terms of the previous variance so this change of use requires the ZBA Minutes June 9, •8 • Page 4 petitioner to come back to the Board and either comply with the code or seek a variance. Mr. Ryan is basically asking for the same variance that was granted before. One requirement of the previous variance was for the landscaping, the other requirement on this site was to close off two curb cuts, one on each street. Those were the two closest to the intersection, this greatly improved the traffic circulation at this intersection. One of the hardships mentioned by the petitioner was putting in the additional landscape islands, he feels that with the rental cars parked on the property, it will make it rather hard to have an adequate driveway width. The area east of the building is where the petitioner proposes to park the cars that will be serviced. Boardmember Walker questioned the Zoning Administrator about the additional building located on the east side of this property, he wanted to know whether or not this building is associated with this property. Mr. Barnes replied that the building is on the same property, it is or was a laundry but presently is vacant and has a "for lease" sign posted. Boardmember Walker went on to question if the landscape plan takes care of this building also. Mr. Barnes replied, by stating that in 1986, when this variance was delt with before, the Board addressed the problem of the overgrown condition of the shrubs and plantings located in front of this building in the area between the sidewalk and the curb and required that it be shaped up. Steve Ryan appeared stating that the reason for the variance request is to allow his business to include light auto repair, emissions testing, etc.. Presently the code allows him to do maintenance on the rental cars only, this is considered an accessory use to the rental operation. As to his knowledge of the building to the east, he stated that he has no knowledge of what will go in there in the future, but stated that San Juan Tours of Denver is the owner of the lot and that he leases his space from them. Boardmember Barnett addressed the issue of not allowing any outside storage at this site to assure that any future tenants or owners with a similar use be bound by a condition to the variance to maintain a clean and neat appearance of the site, he feels that because of the type of use, this site has the potential for some problems. Boardmember Thede wondered if the other building on the site would also be bound by this condition. City Attorney, Paul Eckman, told the Board that since the owner of the property is Grayline from what the Board has been told, assuming the Mr. Ryan has the authority from Grayline to file this application the entire lot apparently was the land that was described; with that, he concluded that this variance would apply to the entire property. The Boardmembers were also concerned with the direct access into the alley from this lot. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, mentioned that the concern over this issue regarding the last use, the tour -bus business, was over the generation of increased traffic from passengers being dropped off and picked up from the site, he wonders if the Board still perceives this as an issue in this case. Boardmember Walker felt that because of the two buildings, something could go into this location that would generate a fair amount of traffic, he is concerned that the Board is looking at only one use at this time and feels that other issues are likely to come up depending on what goes into this building. Mr. Barnes suggested to the Board that if a use other than the laundry, (a change of use) went into ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 Page 5 this building, a condition could be placed on the variance to require that the traffic engineer review the curb cut and alley access and make a recommendation for a barricade if needed. A motion by Boardmember Barnett was made to grant the variance with the condition that no outside storage of vehicle parts be allowed, with the addition that any change of use proposed for the other building on the site be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Walker. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton and Walker. Nays: None. Appeal #1874. Section 29-493 (2), 29-369 (b), by James Reich, 1725 Sharp Point Drive - Approved with conditions. ---The variance would reduce the required setback from a zoning district line from 30 feet to 0 feet for an office/manufacturing/warehouse use in the IL zone. The variance would also reduce the amount of required interior landscaping from 6% to 1.8%. This appeal is for phase I; when phase II is completed, the project will comply with landscape requirements and the phase II addition will connect phase I in the IL zone to phase II in the IG zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This building is phase I of a Vipont expansion. Phase II will be an addition to this building. This building must be designed to accommodate the future addition. The total project encompasses 3 different lots with a zoning district line dividing them into IL and IG zones. The IG zone requires.no setback at all, but since this will all be one building, the zoning line will be right under the building; this makes it impossible to comply with the 30 foot setback. The interior landscape islands are required because of the large loading area and driveway serving it. Putting islands in the loading dock area would not allow for adequate semi -truck circulation; the landscaping would continually be run over. This requirement will be met when phase II is completed. ---Staff comments: Most of the IL zones in the City are adjacent to zones which also require minimum building setbacks. This assures that possible industrial uses will be separated from other land uses in order to mitigate the impact of such things as noise and glare. In this instance, the IL abuts only the IG zone, which requires no setback. Since this is one property under one ownership, with only one building proposed, there is no need to require a setback in order to buffer one lot from the other. Once phase II is complete, the property will have met the 6% requirement by heavily landscaping the interior of the front parking lot. This project will also have a 25 foot landscape strip along the street when the code only requires 10 feet, so there will be more landscaping then the code requires. The Board may want to put a time limit on any variance, tying it to phase II. If phase II is not done by a certain date, then the variance would have to be reviewed again." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, gave a detailed description of the proposed variance, he stated that the property is located in the ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 • Page 6 industrial park area near the Larimer County Detention Center. A zoning district line runs through this area, everything on the south side of the line is zoned IG (general industrial), wherein the code requires no building setbacks at all; and everything on the north side of the line is zoned IL (limited industrial), where the code requires a 30' setback from a zoning district line so that a building on the north of this line would have to be 30' from the zoning district line. The area described would be a building expansion for Vipont to be constructed in two phases. The phase I building would be mostly in the IL zone; however, the site plan shows a portion of that building of phase I would actually be in the IG zone, so, right now with just the phase I building the zoning district line will be going under the building. A curb cut will be made on March Court, this is for the access way which would circulate back to the loading dock area, as mentioned in the petitioners statement regarding the hardship, this is a very large area and is included in the calculation for determining the interior landscaping percentage. In the past the Board has delt with similar variance requests in the industrial areas to eliminate or reduce the interior landscaping for the hardship that the landscaped islands would interfere with the large turning radii necessary to maneuver the semi —trucks on the property, and generally the Board has granted those in the past. James Reich, architect for Vipont, appeared to speak in favor of the variance stating that he is requesting a zoning variance on two separate issues; 1). The setback from the zone district line. The project is planned to be completed in two phases, the plans have been designed with the functions of Vipont in mind. The design is carried over a zoned district line and over a property line. The client has assembled three separate lots for the ultimate construction, with the goal being to have one building, therefore it is impossible to comply with the code. He added that he was unaware that a zone district line ran through this property and after consultation with city representatives felt that requesting a zoning variance was the appropriate method to resolve the issue. 2). The issue of the landscape islands. The petitioner plans to bring into compliance at the time of phase II, he added that to comply at this time would cause some unnecessary trickery. Discussion by the Board centered around coming up with a solution to do away with the circumstance for which the variance is needed, namely the 30' setback required in the IL zone. The Boardmembers agreed that rezoning this property would be the best solution to avoid complications in the future. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes described to the Board the rezoning process to be one which is not routinely done and a process that can become burdonsome. Another concern by the Board was that of the city granting a variance based on something anticipated as happening, Boardmember Walker suggested that a stipulation be attached to the variance with the idea that it be somewhat temporary until such time that the facility is finished. All Boardmembers agreed that some type of time limit be attached to the variance to bring the property into compliance of the code. A motion was made by Boardmember Walker to grant the variance for the setback to be reduced to allow the phase I portion of the building to be built per the plans submitted, and also to allow the variance to reduce the amount of interior landscaping for a period of four years at which time ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 y Page 7 code compliance is to be met or the petitioner must come back to the Board for additional review. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, interjected at this point to clarify the condition stating that when the petitioner is ready to do phase II they will either have to have the property rezoned or come back and ask for another variance to reduce the setback for that portion of the phase II building which is in the IL zone. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Barnett. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton and Walker. Nays: None. Appeal #1875. Section 29-591 (6), by Bud Frick, 930 Ashford Lane —Approved with conditions. ---The variance would allow a subdivision entrance sign to be 85 square feet instead of the allowed 35 square feet. (The actual size of the letters is 24.5 square feet, but the size of the wall is 101 square feet). The sign is the permanent identification sign for Ashford Commons housing project. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The size of the sign is actually 24.5 square feet, well within the allowable size. However, the decorative entrance wall on which the letters are mounted, which is part of the approved PUD, is 101 square feet. Therefore, under the code part of the area of the wall is considered signage. The wall will be heavily landscaped. ---Staff comments: The Board has granted similar variances in the past. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, spoke briefly regarding the variance. This project, Ashford Commons is located in the Clarendon Hills subdivision. The proposed location of the sign was shown to the Board from photographs that were taken at the site. The area of letters is 24 sq. ft., but because this is a ground sign a rather complicated formula is used to determine the actual size of the sign, a certain percentage of the sign structure on which the sign is mounted is added to the area of the letters, so that's how the 85 sq. ft. is determined in this case. The code allows the maximum of 35 sq. ft. for a subdivision entrance identification sign. A copy of the approved P.U.D. landscape plan was given to each Boardmember prior to the meeting, it shows the type of landscape treatment that will be required around this particular fenced area. This variance request is very similar to others that have been granted in the past. Bud Frick appeared in favor of the variance stating that Mr. Barnes covered the subject most adequately and offered to answer any questions that the Board had. It was determined through discussion that this sign would be located not less than 300-400 feet from any other sign, and that the structure would be externally illuminated. One concern was the time frame of the beginning of construction on this project, the Boardmembers wanted to insure that the area around the sign would be landscaped and maintained prior to the total development of the project. ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 Page 8 Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that acceptable landscaping (per the approved P.U.D. documents) be provided within one year. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton and Walker. Nays: None. Appeal #1876. Section 29-591 (6), by Bud Frick, 937 Alexa Way and 5202 Fox Hills Drive — Approved with conditions. ---The variance would allow a subdivision entrance sign to be 112 square feet instead of the allowed 35 square feet. The actual size of the letters is 16.25 square feet. The sign is the permanent identification sign for The Knolls at Clarendon Hills. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The size of the sign is actually 16.25 square feet, well within the allowable size. However, the wall on which the sign is located is part of a fence, therefore under the code part of the area of the wall is considered signage. There is one sign at each entrance to the subdivision. ---Staff comments: The Board has granted similar variances in the past. If the Board considers granting this variance, a condition that landscaping be installed around the wall may be appropriate. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes stated that one sign will be located at each of the two entrances into the Clarendon Hills subdivision, with a wrought —iron fence to be connected to the sign and continuing along the lot line. This situation is very similar to the previous agenda item in which the sign itself is well under 35 sq. ft. but again a certain percentage of the wall is considered for the overall calculation. Bud Frick again appeared in favor of the variance. It was determined that plans were to construct the signs as soon as the streets are finished, it is anticipated that it may take until this fall to install the landscape. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, noted that this development is not a P.U.D. and is not required to do any landscaping in relation to the fence or sign, but the petitioner has submitted plans that show a landscaped area in front of the sign; therefore, the Board can require the landscaping in the granting of the variance. Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that within two years the landscape comply with the plans submitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Barnett. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton and Walker. Nays: None. Appeal #1877. Section 29-591 (5), by Fred Frantz of Adcon Signs, 5450 S. T omo — A---nv A. ---The variance would allow an identification sign for the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church to be internally illuminated instead of externally illuminated. I ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 Page 9 ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The only portions of the sign which light up are the individual letters and the stained glass logo. These are a very small percentage of the total sign surface. The church was concerned with the glare of spotlights back up to the church building during services. The sign is set back a considerable distance from the street, so it does not detract from the streetscape. Due to the topography of the area, all the houses, as well as the church, are much higher than the sign, and if it were lit with spotlights they would all be looking down on it, whereas internal illumination of the letters will cause no glare to the residential area. ---Staff comments: The main hardship is the topography of the area, and it's probably a legitimate one. In addition to the houses and church looking down onto the sign, cars going south on Lemay coming over the hill just before the church would also be looking down onto the spotlights. This could be a distraction to motorists. In this particular area, a sign with internal illumination on only one face would probably be safer and also less detrimental to the residential area. There were no notices returned. One letter was received. Golden Meadows Business Park PO Box 471 Fort Collins, CO 80522 June 3, 1988 Mr. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Pete: I have your form letter dated May 31, 1988, in regard to the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church asking for a sign variance. Our partnership, Fox Ridge, owned the original property for the whole area. Among our first acts of development in the area was the donation of the ground to the City of Fort Collins for the total 18 hole golf course and the selling of the ground to the church for the construction of their new building. We have been extremely happy with the way the golf course turned out and also just as much so with the way the church is developing the property. They both are a credit to the City of Fort Collins and to us, as developers and the owners of the 15 acres of Planned Business which lies immediately south of the church site. Some time in the future, we will be developing a neighborhood retail office complex on the 15 acres and we find absolutely no objection to this sign variance. In fact, we believe that an internally illuminated sign is better than an externally illuminated one. I cannot attend the meeting, but want you to have this letter in your possession to read to the Board of Appeals. Thank you. Sincerely, ZBA Minutes June 9, 1988 Page 10 K. Bill Tiley, Managing Partner Fox Ridge II Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, gave a brief overview of the variance request. The single —faced sign is existing at this location, the churches property is bordered by South Lemay Avenue and South Ridge Greens Blvd.. The area directly south is the South Ridge Greens golf course and the area across the street is currently undeveloped. The hardship is the topography of the land, the spot lights used for exterior illumination of the sign would be noticeable because of the higher elevations at the top of the property, and would be especially noticeable by vehicles while descending the hill on South Lemay. Fred Frantz submitted photographs that were taken during the evening to show both the internal and external lighting situations. One photo was particularly useful in showing the reflection of light from the spot lights back into the traffic lanes of South Lemay. The Boardmembers concluded that a definite hardship exists with the topography of the land. A motion was made by Boardmember Barnett to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Walker. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton and Walker. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Daveawton, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator