HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/08/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular meeting - October 8, 1987
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held Thursday, Octo-
ber 8, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of The City of Fort Col-
lins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Nelson, Lawton,
Barnett and Thede.
Boardmembers Absent: Lancaster, Walker and Coleman (alternate).
Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode.
Minutes of the Annual Meeting
of September 10, 1987 - Approved as Published.
The minutes of the September 10, 1987 annual meeting were unanimously
approved.
Appeal #1837 Section 118-81 (D)(2)(a), by Dale Powers, tenant, 1295 N.
College Avenue - Approved with conditions.
-The variance would reduce the required 5 foot landscape strip along the
north lot line to 0 feet for a change of use from auto repair to video
store in the HB zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is a 30 foot access easement
along the north lot line to provide access to a trucking company
located behind this property, therefore putting landscaping in this
area would violate the terms of the easement. All other requirements
of the parking code will be met, so the property will be upgraded."
---Staff comments: The Board tabled this item from the September 10, 1987
meeting, requesting that the petitioner reappear before the Board in
October, bringing with him a copy of the easement and a letter from the
easement owners stating whether or not they agree to landscaping in the
easement.
This variance was tabled from last months meeting to give the petitioner
the opportunity to provide the board with documentation that an easement
does exist; and the owner of the easements willingness or unwillingness to
go along with the variance.
Dale Powers appeared stating that he had contacted Mr. Steeley, the ease-
ment owner, and that Mr. Steeley signed the bottom of the letter sent to
him by Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes, stating his unwillingness to give
up 5 feet of the easement for landscape requirement purposes. His concern
was the expense of replacing the existing asphalt surface if the petitioner
left this location in the future.
ZBA Minutes - Octobe•, 1987 •
Page 2
Boardmember Thede questioned whether or not the easement documentation
should be in writing. City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that the easement
documentation seemed to be resolved.
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes told the boardmembers that the required
landscaping would be provided on the south side of the lot and also around
the canopy in the form of planters. Boardmember Lawton felt that all
requests from the petitioner had been provided and he had no problem in
going ahead with the variance.
Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated with the condition that the variance be valid for this use only.
Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Nelson, Lawton, Barnett
and Thede. Nays: None.
Appeal #1843 Section 118-40 (B), by Mountain Range Baptist Church, poten-
tial buyer, 3602 Richmond Dr. - approved with condition.
---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 200,000 square
feet to 127,720 square feet to allow a new church and an existing
single family dwelling to be on the same lot. The property is located
in the RE zone.
—Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house is existing on a 127,720
square foot lot. It will be used by the church for residential use and
owned by the church. This is the largest lot in the subdivision and is
the only one that has over the required 100,000 square feet. The
church is a permitted use but 100,000 square feet is required for each
principal use. In reality the house will be a secondary use to the
church. All the lots in this subdivision were platted with less than
100,000 square feet, so just about everything in the subdivision is
non -conforming. The code up until a year ago only required 9000 square
feet of lot area in the RE zone. The other lot area requirement of
this zoning district (lot area must be at least 4 times the floor area
of the building) will be met. With primary access coming off of
Shields and Horsetooth, and substantial landscape buffering, the church
should not negatively impact the neighborhood. In fact a church use
would be a good buffer from the commercial activities which may be
occurring on the other intersections of Shields and Horsetooth."
---Staff comments: A variance was requested for this lot by a different
petitioner at the August meeting. That request was to allow the prop-
erty to be divided into two different lots in order to make the prop-
erty easier to market. In that event, the resulting lots probably
would have been under two different ownerships. This variance request
is quite different, as stated above, this probably would be a good buf-
fer for the neighborhood. The house could be demolished or moved, and
then a variance would not be needed, but the house remaining would help
achieve compatibility of land uses, and would leave the residential
character along Richmond Drive intact. The Board could also classify
the house as an accessory use to the church, and then only 100,000
square feet of lot area would be required and a variance would not be
needed. (It would be necessary for the Board to enumerate the uses
which would be considered accessory). City Planner Ken Waido will also
ZBA Minutes - October-8, 1987 •
Page 3
address the Board in regards to the RE zone.
Zoning administrator Peter Barnes noted that this property may be familiar
to the board members because it was brought before the board in August for
a different variance and that the variance was denied.
Ken Waido of the City Planning office presented information regarding the
Estate Residential Zoning District stating that one and a half years ago
the City and County entered into an agreement to annex properties in the
urban growth area. Forced annexing created the RE zoning district, there-
fore the hardship of one principal use per 100,000 square feet lot size is
a hardship imposed somewhat by the citys annexation.
Chuck Mayhugh, CRM Architects appeared for the variance reinforcing the
statement that a church in the RE zone is a permitted use and that the
issue for the variance is for the size of the lot for the single family
residence that the church intends to use as an accessory residence. Bill
Vigor, chairman of the building committee and Ed Niswinder, pastor of the
church, appeared for the variance. Presently the church has approximately
150-175 attendants. The objective is to build a church compatible and com-
plimentary to the neighborhood, and to keep the existing residence as a
missionary home. This home may be rented until the church building is
nearly completed. Plans for development and construction are slated within
1-2 years.
Bill Tripoli and Anna Mae Zollner, adjacent property owners spoke regarding
(not necessarily opposed to) the variance to bring forth their concerns in
regards to the size and type of church proposed to be built, parking and
traffic concerns, and code requirements for landscaping and fencing. All
of these issues were addressed. Mrs. Zollner was also concerned if multi
family use was applicable in the RE zone. Zoning Administrator Peter
Barnes stated that multi family use is not permitted in that zone. Board -
member Lawton asked if staff would elaborate on the accessory use issue.
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that a church can have a number
of uses considered accessory. A child care center and renewal center are
accessory uses to churches. Parsonages are accessory uses. If the church
was using that existing house for one of these uses, the house could stay
there and the church could be built and no variances needed.
Harry Gorman of 3630 Richmond appeared against the variance mainly because
of traffic concerns, but is also concerned about the accessory uses. Paul
Eckman, City Attorney added that some of the permitted uses are somewhat
more undesirable than the uses in which a variance is needed for. Board -
member Barnett made it known to the Board that he felt that the issue is to
allow the existing residence to remain or to be removed. He felt that the
consensus of the neighbors was to allow the house to remain, which he
agreed with.
Boardmembers discussed the variance at length with all agreeing that this
particular use both satisfies the integrity of the property and is a desir-
able use for the area residents.
Another concern to Boardmember Lawton is the time frame for the beginning
of construction. This issue was addressed with an understanding that a
time restriction will be imposed to guarantee that only the proposed pro-
ZBA Minutes - Octobe• , 1987 •
+ Page 4
ject be built within the time allowed. Otherwise the variance will have to
be reapplied for. The petitioner felt that a 2 year time frame would allow
them to make progress on the project.
Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
created by the history of annexation and changing the zoning ordinance,
with the condition that within 2 years a building permit must be issued and
also with the condition that the residence be limited to the uses proposed
(e.g. missionary home or rental). Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion.
Yeas: Nelson, Lawton, Barnett and Thede. Nays: None.
Appeal #1844 Section 118-41 (D), by Howard Pollock, owner, 432 E. Drake
-approved.
---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet
to 18 feet for an attached carport addition to a single family home in
the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house has a one car garage,
however the owner has two cars. The carport is desirable so that the
second car can be protected from severe weather. There is no room to
build it on the side of the house, so the only place to build it is in
the front of the existing garage. If the setback were met, the carport
would not be long enough to protect the car. It will be an open struc-
ture, so the 2 foot encroachment will not be detrimental. The property
line in front of this house is about 15 feet behind the sidewalk. In
most subdivisions, the property line is only about 5 feet behind the
walk, so this carport will still be further from the street than struc-
tures in other subdivisions which comply with the required setback."
--Staff comments: None.
Howard Pollock appeared for the variance stating that he proposes to build
an attached carport that will have open sides with the roofline and
shingles to match the existing house and will also accommodate a full size
car. Mr. Pollock submitted 2 adjacent property notices signed by the reci-
pients to state their approval of the variance.
Boardmembers discussed the fact that the house was built prior to the
existing City standards. A motion was made by Boardmember Barnett to
approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Thede seconded
the motion. Yeas: Nelson, Lawton, Barnett and Thede. Nays: None.
Appeal #1845 Section 118-41 (E) , by Ray Gile, owner, 407 S. Washington -
approved with condition.
--The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 5 feet and the street side setback along Washington Avenue from 15
feet to 6 feet for a detached two -car garage in the RL zone.
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house is on a corner lot and
faces the legal side yard. The rear property line is adjacent to an
alley, so the intent of the 15 foot rear setback requirement will be
met. Many of the other detached buildings along the alley are also
a
ZBA Minutes - October 8, 1987
Page 5
closer than 15 feet, and the owner would like to be able to do the
same. In order to preserve the only south facing window in the home,
the garage will not be attached, and would be placed to the east to
preserve the light which comes through this window. Due to the loca-
tion of the house on the lot and the utilities, this is the best place
to put the garage. Any other location would also require variances."
---Staff comments: The proposed garage will be only 10 feet from the
side -walk. This will not allow a car to be parked in the driveway
without overhanging the walk. We would require at least a 15 foot dis-
tance to accommodate a car in the drive.
Ray Gile appeared for the variance stating that he purchased the property
this year and is currently landlord for the property. He proposes to uti-
lize part of the lot to build a detached garage. The utilities are located
underground in the alley so locating the garage any further back would
cause a problem. An existing elm tree that has roots growing into the
foundation will be removed, but he plans to replace it at a later time.
The petitioner also proposes to remove the existing driveway and move it on
the east side off of Washington to accommodate the garage that will be
built.
Boardmember Nelson was concerned over the issue of allowing only 10 feet
between the front of the garage door to the sidewalk causing an hazard for
pedestrians when a vehicle is parked in the drive.
The petitioner has been given approval to move the section of the sidewalk
to the curb by the Engineering department. The petitioner has agreed to
move that portion of the walk, this would allow additional room between the
walk and the garage.
The boardmembers discussed the minimum requirements for the driveway length
and the width of the walk leading to Boardmember Barnett making a motion to
approve the variance for the hardship stated such that the setback on the
east property line be 8 feet from the property line to the front of the
garage and that the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb. The motion was sec-
onded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Nelson, Lawton, Barnett and Thede.
Nays: None.
Appeal #1846 Section 118-41 (F), by Charles Arthur, owner, 1405 Beech
Court - Approved as stated.
---The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west
lot line from 5 feet to 1.3 feet for a one -car garage addition to a
single family home in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner desires to add on to the
existing 1-car garage. In order to allow for the new addition to have
a garage door which matches the existing one, an 11 foot addition is
required. The lot is somewhat pie -shaped so the west lot line does not
run parallel to the building. Therefore the only place the garage is
1.3 feet from the property line is at the corner."
--Staff comments: None.
•
ZBA Minutes - October 8, 1987
Page 6
Chuck Arthur appeared for the variance, he proposes to drop the roofline 8"
to break up the roofline and also to enable him to use standard trusses.
This garage will be set back 1 foot and part of the driveway slab will be
removed for the foundation. The garage will match the existing structure.
The boardmembers proposed setting the garage addition back further. The
petitioner was not agreeable with that because of an addition on the back-
side of the existing garage, thus obstructing the view from that room.
Boardmembers were concerned with the lack of distance between this garage
addition and the fenced property line, all boardmembers agreed that 1.3
feet is insufficient for maintenance and agreed that another solution be
considered to provide side maintenance and to break up the roofline.
Boardmember Nelson made a motion to deny the appeal because of the unusual
close distance, but approve the variance for the west lot line setback to
3' instead of 5' to allow room to expand the existing one car garage into a
2 car garage. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Nelson,
Lawton, Barnett, Thede. Nays: None.
Appeal #1847 Section 118-95 (A), by John Shaw, sign contractor, 1630 South
College - Approved with condition.
---The variance would reduce the required setback for a ground sign with-
out free air space and located within 50 feet of an intersection of a
street with a driveway from 15 feet to 6 feet. The sign is for an
office building in the HE zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The building to the south blocks
any potential viewing of the buildings signs by motorists driving
north. Therefore, the petitioner desires to place all of the signage
for this property in one groundsign, and proposes to remodel the exist-
ing freestanding sign into a groundsign to accomplish this. There is
no location on the lot where the sign can be placed more than 50 feet
from a driveway, and the only place on the lot where it could meet the
required 15 foot setback would be in the parking lot on the north side
of the building, which is located behind the front of the building.
Again, this would not allow exposure to north bound traffic. The
building to the south is right up to the property line and is actually
more of an obstacle to adequate site distance than the sign would be."
---Staff comments: Even though the building to the south is built right to
the property line, it is built with walls at an angle, so the whole
building is not right on the line. Nonetheless, it does limit site
distance to a certain extent. However, the present air space in the
existing sign does allow for additional viewing. This property does
have certain hardships such as the building to the south and the
inability to have a sign anywhere on the lot which will be more than 50
feet from a driveway. Because of this, signage for this building has
always been a problem, and as a result, the Zoning Board has granted
sign variances for this property 3 times in the past. If the Board
finds that it is necessary to maintain air space in order to improve
visibility, an alternative would be to have the design of the sign
modified so that the bottom part of the sign is moved to the top, leav-
ing a whole where one presently exists. This would result in the sign
ZBA Minutes - October8, 1987
F Page 7
being taller, and being classified as a freestanding sign instead of a
groundsign. A freestanding sign of this size would require a 27 foot
setback, and the variance would have to be modified to reduce the set-
back from 27 feet to 6 feet.
Zoning administrator Peter Barnes stated that historically this property
has had a problem where signage is concerned because of the closeness of
the front of the building to the street and the protruding configuration of
the building located to the south of this location. This property has had
variance requests 3 times in the past for signage.
John Shaw, and Mike Campbell owner of the building, appeared for the vari-
ance. Photographs were submitted to the board to show the actual view from
the backside of the proposed sign when leaving the driveway to enter traf-
fic on College avenue.
Boardmembers discussed the sign code requirements for this particular zone
and the proposed sign plan in regard to traffic safety. Boardmembers were
concerned with the visual obstruction caused by the sign. City attorney
Paul Eckman stated that the Board is not to grant variances if the grant-
ing of the variance would be detrimental to the public good so the Board
would need to make some determination that the granting of this variance
would not create a safety problem.
After discussion the Board determined that a groundsign with no air space
would somewhat impede visibility.
A second sign drawing was submitted which allows free airspace but makes
the sign taller. The boardmembers discussed the plan submittal.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance specifically for
the second sign drawing submitted, with the condition that this variance
expire with the demolition of the building to the south of this property,
namely the Midwest Divers Supply building. The variance for this sign
reduces the required setback from 27 feet to 6 feet. The motion was sec-
onded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Nelson, Lawton, Barnett and Thede.
Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Lawton, Chairman
j& 73
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator