Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/13/19960 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING June 13, 1996 8:30 am 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The monthly meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 13, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were resent: Lieser, Huddleson, Keating, Breth, Felner, Gustafson. Members absent: Shannon Staff Present: Peter Barnes, Building and Zoning Jennifer Nuckols, Building and Zoning The minutes from the April meeting were approved Appeal 2172 228 First Street by Diana Baca Owner. approved Section 29-178(2) The variance will reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet in order to allow a new home to be located on a vacant lot in the Buckingham Place subdivision. Most of the lots in this subdivision are the same width - 50 feet. A few lots are only 45 feet wide. Petitioners statement of hardship: The subdivision was platted years ago with lots not exceeding 50 feet in width. A number of similar variances have been granted over the years to allow new homes. Without a variance, nothing can be built. ---- Staff comments: Four lot width variances just in this block have been granted by the ZBA in previous years. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed slides of the area and stated that four homes on this same block have received similar variances on the lot width in the past in order to either tear down the existing home and build a newer home or build a new home on a vacant lot. Chairman Breth questioned if the lot is bordered by two alleys? Barnes stated yes, on the side and the back. Zoning Board of Appeals June 13,1996 Page 2 Diana Baca, Owner, appeared before the Board. Ms. Baca stated that she purchased the lot to have a home placed there on a permanent foundation. Stated that her father lives in the house next door and that a ditch ran through both lots. Her father quick -claimed the corner of his lot where the ditch ran through to her. One letter was received in favor of this appeal. No one was present in favor or against this appeal. Huddleson stated that the Board was somewhat bound to this by precedent since this type of appeal was approved before. Huddleson moved to approve appeal 2172 based on the hardship stated. Leiser seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Felner, Breth, Keating, Huddleson, Leiser. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2173 4112 Dillon Way by Darrell Pozamsky. Owner. approved Section 29-133(3). ---- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 1571 along Butte Pass in order to allow a new, one -car, detached garage to be located in the back yard area of the lot. The home is on a corner lot, where the !ad front lot line is along Butte pass, even though the home faces Dillon Way. ---- Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is one of those corner lot situations where the legal front is really the street side, and where the legal street side is really the front. The required setback from a street side lot line is 15 feet. The proposed garage complies with that requirement. A house two lots to the east is on a corner, where the legal front in along Butte Pass and the home is 16 feet from Butte Pass, about the same distance as the propose garage will be. Moving the garage about 4 1/2 feet south would put it too close to the house. There is an existing concrete slab on the side of the house and the proposed location would line up the garage door with the slab/driveway. Barnes explained how the house faced into the cul-de-sac, which is Dillon Court, however the legal front lot line is along Butte Pass. He explained that the shortest of the two street frontages on a corner lot is always the legal front property line regardless of which way the house faces. In this instance, there is less frontage along Butte Pass than along Dillon Way, therefore Butte Pass is the front lot line and a 20 foot setback is required from the front property line. Barnes noted on the slides, the location of the existing slab and that the proposed garage would be behind that slab. Barnes pointed out a similar house two doors down with a 16 foot setback along Butte Pass. Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1996 Page 3 Board Member Huddleson questioned why the petitioner did not just build onto the side of the existing garage. Barnes stated that adding on where the slab is would still require a variance in that the garage would still extend out at least as far as the proposed garage. Darrell Pozarnsky, Owner, appeared before the Board. In response to Huddleson's above question, he stated that his first choice was to add on where the slab is, but that it would require the structure going even closer to the street. Pozarnsky stated that his main reason for the garage is for storage. Chairman Breth questioned why the garage can't be moved further to the south? Pozarnsky replied that it would be difficult to access it from the front of the house and that there is a window on the lower level that would be blocked, and it would be more visible to the neighbors. No one was present in favor or against this appeal. A letter from the petitioner's neighbor was read. The letter was in favor of the appeal. Barnes stated that the letter came from neighbors across the cul-de-sac. Huddleson stated that this particular application falls within the corner lot exception, although stated that Breth raised a good question on the location of the garage. Barnes stated that the distance the proposed garage is from the corner of the house is 4 feet, so to move it so that is would comply , it would be abutting the back corner of the existing structure. Huddleson moved to approve appeal 2173 for the hardship stated. Lieser seconded. Yeas: Gustafson, Felner, Breth, Keating, Huddleson, Lieser. Nay: None. The motion passed. Board member Gustafson excused himself from the next appeal stating a conflict of interest. Appeal 2174 1015 S. Shields St by Glen Werth Owner approved with conditions Sections 29-595(c), 29-595(d) ---- The variance would reduce the required setback from the front property line from 10 feet to 3 feet, and reduce the distance from the north side lot line from 15 feet to 12 feet for a new 40 sq. ft. freestanding sign for the redeveloped Texaco site. ---- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Due to the location of curb cuts and driveways on this site and the adjacent Campus West lot, the proposed island location is the only location for a freestanding sign that works where it will not interfere with vehicle and pedestrian circulation. If the island is enlarged to allow the sign to be moved back, then the shared Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1996 Page 4 driveway easement will be blocked. The sign is proposed to be located directly behind a City street light pole, therefore it will only be 12 feet from the north lot line. However, due to the location of the existing curb cuts, it would not be possible for another freestanding sign to be located within 30 feet of the proposed sign, thus satisfying the intent of the code. The sign is designed to allow visibility under the bottom of the sign, so the height cannot be reduced. Barnes referred back to appeals from November of 1995 for the redevelopment of this lot and problems from issues regarding widening of Shields St. and issues regarding access to the Campus West shops. He stated that at that time the petitioner did not know their signage criteria and what exactly they were going to do and how the site was going to lay out so in November, he was not ready to request a sign variance. The property has since received a building permit for the reconstruction of the site. The canopy remains, however the old Texaco station and repair bay buildings have been demolished, and the new convenience building is under construction. Barnes pointed out curb cut locations on the overhead slides - one towards the south end of the property, one towards the north end of the property and one at the Campus West shops and a connection between the two properties allowing delivery trucks to park on the Texaco site and access the Campus West shops. Barnes pointed out one landscaped island with a City street light that will remain, which is the proposed location for the freestanding sign. Barnes also noted a bus bench that is in the island which would be removed by the end of June if the variance were granted. Barnes stated that code requires on a sign this size (40 sq. ft. per side, 11 feet in height), that it be set back 10 feet from the front property line. In this instance, the property line is right behind the sidewalk. The island cannot be enlarged because of the shared driveway connection that goes through that area. Another requirement of the code is that the sign be at least 15 feet from a side property line. That is to provide 30 feet of separation between freestanding signs in order to reduce clutter. Board member Keating questioned the placement of the sign as "behind" the light post. Barnes noted the placement of the City light pole and that the sign would be placed directly in line with that pole, behind, meaning to the west, of that light pole. The face of the sign would be 3 feet behind the property line along Shields. Breth questioned Barnes on the sign code as to one pole and/or two pole signs. Barnes replied that any time there is air space between the bottom of the sign face and the ground, such as this case, it is classified as freestanding, whether it is one, two or three poles. Keating asked if there is to be any other signage on the property. Barnes stated that there is signage on the canopy, none on the east side of the building, about 20 sq ft on the north wall of the building. They are not proposing a lot of additional signage as they don't have a lot of Zoning Board of Appeals June 13,1996 Page 5 allowance left to work with. Breth questioned if there is space for the sign on the south side of the property. Barnes stated that because of the median, you can only enter this property heading south, so once you came to the sign, you would have passed the entrance. There is only one way to enter this property. Glenn Werth, owner, appeared before the Board. Werth stated that they are limited to the location of the sign and that visibility is his main concern. Breth asked if he considered having a one pole sign. Werth stated that the base would be wider if it were a one pole sign, than a two pole sign. The sign is 8 feet wide and would be too large for one pole. Keating questioned the changing of the sign. Werth explained that the old type sign is not available and that they would like to be able to put pricing on the sign. Barnes stated that the new sign is approximately the same size as the old sign. Huddleson questioned the shared driveway as to who established that. Werth stated that it was a new design with the street widening project. Barnes stated that there are alot of the properties cooperating on the access issue. Huddleson stated that he was trying to satisfy himself that there is something requiring them to place the sign closer to Shields, other than the shared driveway. Barnes stated that there is not the opportunity to expand the island, but that the Board may want to consider the condition that if the access point is ever closed off, at that time the sign variance setback would seize. He also stated that the placement of the sign from a streetscape standpoint, makes more sense to be where it is closely in conjunction with the business area, as opposed to a church open space area to the south. Barnes discussed the landscape plan briefly. No one was present in favor or against this appeal. Breth stated that he could see the hardship in this case Keating moved to approve Appeal 2174 with the conditions that should the shared driveway access point be closed off, the sign setback variance would seize. Yeas: Gustafson, Felner, Breth, Keating, Huddleson, Lieser. Abstention: Gustafson. Nays: None. The motion passed. Other Business East side/west side ordinance. Zoning Board of Appeals June 13, 1996 Page 6 Barnes stated that City Council wants a report in February 1997 on how the new ordinances are working in the old part of town. Breth stated that he wanted some education on the issues. Barnes stated that he could do a brief training session to go over the changes. It was decided to meet 30 minutes earlier at the next meeting (8:00 a.m.). Breth asked if the ES/WS ordinance can enhance a hardship? Barnes referred to the Pickle Barrel ordinance. Additional Business: New Member Introductions: Dan Keating is taking the place of Mara Elliott who recently moved to California. Dan is a loan officer with First Colorado Mortgage William (Butch) Stockover will be replacing Chuck Huddleson. Butch will begin his term at the July meeting. He is the owner of The Old Town Car Wash. Chuck Huddleson is leaving the Board after eight years. Staff and Board members expressed their appreciation for Chuck's contribution and presented him with a small gift. The meeting was adjourned Marty Breth, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator