Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/10/1988T r 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 10, 1988 Regular Meeting — 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 10, 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, Walker and Nelson. Boardmembers absent: Lancaster and Coleman. Staff present: Barnes, Goode and Eckman. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 14, 1988, Approved as Published The minutes of the January 14, 1988 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1859. Section 29-511 (1), by Gary Edelen, 1224 Centennial —Approved. ---The variance would allow a fence to exceed 4 feet in height when located less than 20 feet from the front property line. Specifically, the variance would allow a 6 foot high fence to be built up to the property line along Eindborough Street on this corner lot, in order to fence in the back yard. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a corner lot, and the house faces the legal side yard. Therefore, the legal front yard in reality is the side and back yard of the lot. The lot starts to slope off at the edge of the house, so even a 6 foot fence will not afford a lot of privacy. The covenants require the owner's boat to be in the garage or behind a fence in the back yard. This proposed area off the driveway is the only place which would allow this. The fence exceeds the required distance of 75 feet from the center of the intersection, so there is no traffic hazard." ---Staff comments: None No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes spoke regarding the circumstances of a corner lot. The way the house faces is not necessarily the legal front lot line. the legal front yard is the narrowest of the two street frontages, and in this instance is Eindborough Street. ZBA Minutes March 10, 1988 Page 2 Gary Edelen appeared in favor of the variance. It is proposed to construct a 6' high fence out of No. 1, premium grade cedar pickets up to the prop— erty line which is 5' behind the inside edge of the sidewalk. Tom Zulvis, 3025 Eindborough Street appeared against the variance stating that the proposed fence would obstruct the view from the front of his neighboring property creating a personal hardship for him, along with caus— ing a negative look for the neighborhood since there are no other fences on Eindborough which extend to within 5 feet of the walk. Addressing Mr. Zulvis' concerns, Boardmember Walker suggested that lands— caping in the 5' strip along the property line could be done to somewhat soften the effect of the fence. He also noted that there are no landscap— ing restrictions at this time, and a heavy hedge or other landscaping could be placed in the same area as the proposed fence without a variance. After some discussion, the Board determined that the owner meets all of the zoning requirements for erecting a fence with the exception of the corner lot circumstance. The Board could appreciate the consideration for aes— thetics, but felt that this same issue had been delt with before and the hardship has always been sufficient for the Board to consider, thus leading to a motion by Boardmember Walker to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Specifically, this is a corner lot and the house faces the legal side yard and by denying the variance it would deny the owner full use of what is his backyard. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Walker and Nelson. Nays: Thede. Appeal #1860 (reference #1857). Section 29-591 (6), by Gardner Signs, 1700 S. Shields — Approved with condition. ---The variance would allow a new identification sign for the Northwood Apartments to be located at a location other than at the actual entrance into the project. The new sign would replace the existing one at this location, and would be at the corner of Shields and Stuart rather than at the corner of Stuart and Heritage Circle. The variance would also allow the sign to have interior illumination instead of indirect illumination. This sign is a 32 square foot ground sign. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. Also, the Landmark Apartments across the street received a similar variance, as did the Peachtree Condominiums last year (located at Horsetooth and Carlton). ---Staff comments: As mentioned in the hardship, variances of this type have been granted before for the same reasons as requested here. In addition to the two examples mentioned above, the Board also granted a similar variance last year to the Oakridge single family development." No notices were returned; two letters were received, they are attached. • ,T ZBA Minutes March 10, 1988 Page 3 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes spoke regarding the variance giving a brief overview on the history of this type of request. Joann Greer, manager of the Northwood Apartments appeared to speak in favor of the variance. The management of the project plans to do extensive up- grading to the appearance of the project. It is the intention of the peti- tioner to remove the existing sign at Shields and Stuart and replace it with a new sign that will be placed perpendicular to the corner of Shields and Stuart. Two additional directional signs, each one under 4 square feet which will consist of an "arrow" and an "office" sign will be located at the two entrances on Stuart Street to enhance traffic flow into the pro- ject. A variance is also requested for interior illumination. The peti- tioner feels that internal illumination is most effective, and that this project will be over -looked compared to the other projects in the vicinity that do have interior illumination. Another concern was for the greater possibility that indirect lighting, such as spot lights have with being tampered with from heavy foot traffic in the area. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes spoke regarding the letter that was sub- mitted by George Powell, owner of a neighboring property at 1300 W. Stuart. He felt that Mr. Powell had misunderstood the variance request and has mis- interpreted the actual location of the proposed sign, which will be approx- imately 1,000 feet from Mr. Powell's property. City Attorney Paul Eckman spoke to clarify the interpretation of the code. In the RP zone, indirect illumination is the only type of lighting allowed without a variance. Indirect lighting is considered to be less intrusive to the residential character of the neighborhood. In this case, being Shields Street, the Board can decide whether or not this is really a resi- dential neighborhood and whether an internally illuminated sign would be intrusive or not. Discussion between the Boardmembers lead to a motion from Boardmember Thede to grant the variance with the condition that the proposed sign be placed at the proposed location and with directional signs only, (not to exceed 4 square feet each), to be located at the two entrances of the project. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Walker, also with the condition that no interior illumination be allowed, he added that a candle power contest should not be a valid consideration for a hardship. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton, Walker and Nelson. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Dave Lawton, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator T Gardner 4m, Ine. 900 Ile®e Avenue Fort Co. . Colorado 80524 To Whom It May Concern: Fort Collins (303) 482-3976 • Denver (303) 973-6556 Greeley (303) 353-6039 Cheyenne (307) 634-3519 FAX (303) 482-3999 It is the desire of our client to obtain a variance to sign ordinance 118-91, the limitation of (1) identification sign per entrance to the property and the limitation of having only indirect lighting. We wish to place this sign at the corner of Stuart and Shields instead of the actual entrance at Heritage Circle and Stuart. Potential tenants have a difficult time finding the entrance as this housing development is so large, extending 853' along Shields and visible from Prospect. We feel this proposed location will aid the traffic flow on Shields by directing tenants quickly off Shields and onto a side street. We also wish to have an internally illuminated sign as many tenants and potential tenants are traveling during the early morning and evening hours. If we use indirect lighting as the code requests, this sign will be overlooked as the adjacent Spring Creek Plaza has a number of internally illuminated signs. Thank you for your consideration. FW CdlUb, Cob • idBCYJ, lJhlp 1988 ✓Nc f -' _%'��ec..,;'�i�l.l:oN y ti�n.� /�'�.�..�,Gv�x�U/ ��yd/�,'`.r�P,c'/s 'le '15P-C.c r e All e 1v T/Fiiu� 4J!G t s'i` -e �r'o o e_� ✓/czr.-s .vt e Q Nc�[G/mac'-.+-/� f/c'E-�m_v l"iy,v � �� /✓or_ o� �+ �ff�P,�.iys f/o /Lr�ITCs.f r s /li�OlL� Q. Rli/ems�' f /(/,sP�Ofi�JO�f� ^c+Uc✓, 0Cc/.G 4 1C°OAI&&G (Z / 9, ��rLtcc C`C�./-/ai.✓1 76�t�.7� tt/. �s �tr��/Zt �� �(.�p S.f.� C°E.G/11,.v O /lCy /P.�'%.s��f. •/}�•v //lfr ��+o� /t1 N-O t. /c� ,/Jldsii�f� ��la/K'r• C.. �sCKi a�e /oLv A/ LtiAl4��1X. fit` // / / J CAA, f j�/,,L/C I'CX C. C'i11 A/1S S/OU /O ✓�'s t ,�at�� way � %� ,,� �� es7`.r�QI%o.✓. �<>�c.c�s 7� fd �i�„�./7�j f s ✓cd�c. ��ticc . fd3 d i