HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/12/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting - March 12, 1987
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held
March 12, 1987, in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Hall. Boardmembers Barnett, Walker, Lawton, and Lancaster were
Boardmembers Absent: Lieser, Coleman, Thede
Staff Present: Eckman, Barnes, Brayfield
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of February 12, 1987 - Approved as Published
on Thursday,
Collins City
present.
The minutes of the February 12, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously
approved as published.
The hearing of Appeal # 1791 was moved to the end of the agenda.
Appeal # 1792 Section 118-61 (C), by Ron Bush, potential buyer, 1090 E.
Elizabeth - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required lot width form 75 feet to 69
feet for an insurance office in the BL zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to convert
the existing house into an insurance office. The lot is already
existing with only 69 feet of width. The petitioner will comply with
all other applicable codes.
---Staff recommendation: Approval. A similar variance was granted by the
Board on December 11, 1986."
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that a similar
variance was granted for this lot in December of 1986. The difference is
that the petitioner now proposes to use the existing building, and
therefore is not required to obtain a subdivision plat from the City.
Because a subdivision plat is not needed, there is no mechanism for the
City to require the additional 19 feet of right-of-way along Lemay. Mr.
Bush will be required to submit a landscape plan for approval by the City
Forester.
Petitioner Ron Bush, 923 E. Prospect, spoke in favor of the variance
stating that he is asking for a variance for a 69 ft. lot width rather than
the previously granted 50 ft. lot width. Mr. Bush felt that it would be
ZBA Minutes - Mar* 2 1987
Page 2
more desirable to leave the existing house on the corner lot rather than
build a new commercial space. He plans to improve the lot with the
addition of landscaping, parking, and handicap ramps. Mr. Bush explained
that he currently employs only one person, and would employ a maximum of
three people with future expansion. He felt that the proposed amount of
parking would be more than adequate considering the number of employees and
the nature of his business. Mr. Barnes stated that parking met code
requirements.
Boardmember Walker asked if the City would require a change in the existing
curbing• Mr. Barnes replied that it would remain basically the same,
however, the City Traffic Engineer would like to see the existing driveway
closed off.
Mr. Bush stated that the garage would be sealed off for security purposes,
and the driveway would be closed and landscaped. There will be no public
access to the lower level where the garage and driveway now exist.
Roardmember Lawton said that in December when the previous variance was
granted, the discussion centered on parking concerns. He thought that this
was no longer a problem considering the proposed use of the building and
the small number of employees.
Boardmember Barnett stated that he had no problem with the variance, he
felt that the proposed business was more desirable than a vacant building
on the corner.
Boardmember Lancaster thought that the proposal was more compatible with
the existing neighborhood than the previous variance.
There was some discussion about the previously granted variance. City
Attorney Eckman stated that it would automatically expire in three months
and did not need to be rescinded.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton,
Lancaster, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal # 1793 Section 118-43 (E), 118-43 (F), by Arlen Peace, owner, 1016
LaPorte - Denied.
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 5 feet, and the east side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a
garage addition in the RM zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owners need additional storage
space and would like to add on to the existing garage, which already is
set back only 2 feet from the east lot line. The rear property line
is along a T-shaped alley, so a 5 foot rear setback will. not adversely
affect anyone.
' ZBA Minutes - Mar* 2, 1987 i
Page 3
---Staff recommendation: Approval of the rear setback reduction, denial
of the side setback reduction. An additional 46 feet of building 2
feet from the side lot line can negatively affect the adjacent
property. Since there is no opening between the addition and the
existing building, the addition should be able to be offset to the west
somewhat."
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the homeowner proposed to build the
garage directly behind the older one. The garage would be closer than 15
to the property line, however, it is common for a detached garage to be
closer than the 15 feet in the older part of town.
Petitioner Arlen Peace, 1016 LaPorte, spoke in favor of the appeal. He
said that he needs more storage for his vehicles so that he can get them
out of the weather. He proposed to build a 30 x 46 foot garage to line up
with the existing garage. It would not open up to the older garage, but
would be a completely separate structure.
Boardmember Barnett asked how the 2 foot space between the new garage and
property line would be maintained. Mr. Peace stated that it probably would
be grass. Mr. Barnett thought that a long narrow space behind the garage
would tend to accumulate weeds and trash.
Boardmember Walker pointed out that the new structure would be completely
separate from the old garage, so there was no reason why the two must line
up. He felt that Mr. Peace could conform to the side yard setback
requirements.
Boardmember Lawton asked why the garage needed to be so long. Mr. Peace
stated that he needed as much storage space t3 possible. He thought that
because of the T-shaped alley, there would be no problem getting in and out
of the garage.
Roardmember Walker asked if the garage would be used for a home occupation,
such as automotive repair. Mr. Peace stated that the garage would be for
his personal use only.
Ken Bradley, 210 N. Shields, spoke in favor of the variance. He lives next
door and had no problem with the proposal. He said it would improve the
appearance of the alley to have the vehicles under cover. Mr. Bradley
stated further that his garage was closer than the required 15 foot
setback.
Boardmember Walker asked if the City had any restrictions for a garage this
large. Mr. Barnes stated that it was not prohibited, but once the
structure was larger than 1,000 sq. ft. it goes into a different occupancy
and this factor in addition to its proximity to the property line could
impose some additional building code requirements.
Boardmember Walker said that if the new garage was to be attached to the
existing garage he would agree with the requested 2 foot setback. But
ZBA Minutes - Mato 12, 1987
Page 4
u
given the fact that they are separate structures, he felt the 5 foot side
yard setback could be met. He had less of a problem with the requested
rear yard setback.
Boardmember Barnett felt that the garage could be shortened, or there were
other options for placing the garage on the back of the lot so that the
code could be met. He did not see a hardship.
Mr. Peace said that he needed the extra length to store a motor home and a
boat, which are both over 20 feet in length.
Boardmember Lancaster said that although he could see the hardship of
having seven vehicles that needed to be stored on the property, he could
not see the hardship from the zoning standpoint.
Boardmember Walker commented that the footprint of the structure was as
large as a house, and the Board would not allow a house to be only 2 feet
from the property line. Boardmember Lawton said there were other options.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to deny the variance for lack of
hardship. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton,
Lancaster, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal # 1794 Section 118-42 (B), (F), (E), by Larry Odau, 1200, 1206,
1212, 1218 Pomona - Approved with Changes.
---The variance would reduce the minimum lot area from 42,000 square feet
to 41,352 square feet, the minimum street side yard setback from 15
feet to 10 feet, and the minimum rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5
feet for seven duplexes in the RLM zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner desires to combine the
four lots into one property which will enable him to cluster the
buildings and only have 2 access points on Pomona. The area of the lot
is more than the 3 times the total floor area of the buildings as
required, but lacks 648 square feet for the 6000 square feet per
building. Hanna is the legal front of the combined lots but Pomona
serves as the front in reality.
--Staff recommendation: Approval of the lot area reduction. No
recommendation on the setbacks."
One notice was returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the lots on Granada were allowed to
have fourplexes. When the four lots are combined, Hanna becomes the front
lot line by code. The applicant has already placed fourplexes on the lots
across the street. The density would actually be less in the proposed area
than on the other side of the street.
Petitioner Larry Odau spoke in favor of the project stating that he plans
to provide low income housing that will rent for about $300 a month. The
ZBA Minutes - Marci 12, 1987 •
Page. 5
two bedroom units are 864 sq. ft., and the three bedroom units are 1100 sq.
ft. He is moving pre-existing units onto the lot, so he does not have the
option of shortening the buildings. He proposes to cluster the units to
provide more green space. The buildings have no rear exits, so there is no
need for a large rear yard. The project meets the required 3:1 area ratio,
however, the lots do not have the required 6,000 square feet per building.
Boardmember Barnett asked what would happen if the setbacks were met. Mr.
Odau stated that he could not place as many units on the lot, and also,
they would end up with 15 foot back yards with no access from the
buildings, and less landscaping in the front.
Boardmember Walker stated that the project needs a variance of 5 feet on
Pomona, but perhaps the whole cluster could be shifted over 5 feet. Mr.
Odau stated that he would not be opposed to doing that.
Boardmember Walker stated that because the rear setback would be a sideyard
if the lot was standing alone, the intent of the code was being met. He
would be in favor of moving the project back five feet from Pomona to
maintain the streetscape. Mr. Walker felt that in regards to the lot area,
the intent of the code was being met.
Boardmember Lancaster felt that the proposal was a better use of land than
the area across the street, and that it was a creative solution to the land
use. Boardmember Barnett agreed.
Boardmember Lawton observed that there was less parking for these units
than across the street. Mr. Barnes stated that the amount of parking met
code requirements.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve a variance for the lot area to
be reduced to 41,352, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5
feet, but to require the 15 foot setback along Pomona. Boardmember
Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Lancaster, Walker.
Nays: None.
Appeal # 1795 Section 118-91 (A), by Doug Donaldson, 1110 W. Prospect -
---The variance would allow a sign for a camera repair home occupation in
the RL zone to be larger than the allowable 2 square feet.
Specifically, the sign would be 9.17 square feet.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property is on the corner of
two major arterial streets, Prospect and Shields. The owner desires to
have a larger sign to have increased visibility so that it will be
easier for people to see at a distance, allowing them ample time to
make decisions about where they need to go in order to create less of a
traffic hazard.
--Staff recommendation: Approval. Variances have been granted in the
past for home occupation signs along arterial streets."
ZBA Minutes - MarCO12, 1987 •
Page 6
No notices were returned. One letter was received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes distributed two alternate sign designs to the
Board. Mr. Barnes stated that there was a problem with the first design
proposed, and Mr. Donaldson wished to submit these alternates.
Petitioner Doug Donaldson, 1110 W. Prospect, spoke in favor of the appeal.
He stated that Shields and Prospect were both only two lane streets when he
bought the property. Both streets were widened, which cut into his drive,
putting the entrance at an odd angle. Now it is hard to see the entrance
to his business in time to make a safe turn. Mr. Donaldson plans to do
several things to make the entrance safer. The first step would be to build
a larger sign so that people can see the entrance in time to make a safe
turn into his drive. Later he plans to change the drive and parking
arrangement to make it safer. Mr. Donaldson stated further that he has a
handicapped child, and improving visibility of his drive would allow
traffic to turn into his drive more slowly, making it safer for his
daughter. He stated that the sign would located next to the existing
drive, but might be moved in the future.
Boardmember Lawton stated that the variance was for square footage only. He
asked if the variance would allow Mr. Donaldson to move the sign to any
other location at a later date. Mr. Barnes stated that if the sign was
moved, it would have to conform to code requirements.
Boardmember Lancaster asked about the materials and construction of the
sign. Mr. Donaldson replied that the frame would be laminated, and the
sign itself would be painted plywood with 6 inch lettering. The sign would
be in browns and greys with contrasting lettering and would be lit with
ground lighting, one light on each side.
Mr. Barnes stated that internal illumination would not be allowed. Outside
illumination would be allowed as long as there was no glare to be a traffic
hazard.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton,
Lancaster, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal n 1796 Section 118-81 (D) (2) (a), by Dennis Edwards, potential
buyer, 100 Riverside - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required parking lot landscape setback
along Riverside Avenue from 15 feet to 8 feet for a new auto body shop
in the IG zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is a very irregular shaped
lot. Because there are only limited locations on the lot wide enough
to build a building, a 15 foot landscape setback would not allow enough
backup room to allow cars to back out of the building and parking
spaces.
ZBA Minutes - Mar*2, 1987 •
Page 7
---Staff recommendation: Approval. The shape of the lot is a legitimate
hardship, and the proposed improvements are about all that can be done.
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that this was an
irregular shaped lot which was not wide enough at the east end to allow
room for cars to back out of the parking place, and still allow the 15 foot
landscape buffer. The petitioner plans to open a new auto body shop on the
corner.
Petitioner Dennis Edwards spoke in favor of the variance stating that he
planned to beautify the corner by cleaning up the lot and making_ the new
auto body shop look professional.
Boardmember Barnett asked if there would be a curb separating the parking
area from the landscaping. He also asked if there were other areas of the
lot not usable for business, which could be used for additional
landscaping. Several alternative locations for additional landscaping were
discussed.
Boardmember Walker asked Mr. Edwards how he planned to maintain the narrow
point of the lot. Mr. Edwards assured the Board that he would keep the
point free of weeds and trash - he was very concerned about the appearance
of the lot.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that according to the proposal, there
would be no parking or storage on the narrow point of the lot - therefore
no landscaping buffer would be needed. However, if automobile storage or
parking occurs on that part of the lot, additional landscaping would be
required on that area of the lot.
Boardmember Walker thought there was a legitimate hardship because of the
shape of the lot. Boardmember Rarnett agreed, but was concerned that the
area to the east of the fenced storage be properly maintained. Boardmember
Lancaster said that the lot was very visible to people entering, Fort
Collins, and he was concerned about the proper screening of the vehicle
storage. He thought that there was a lot of vehicle movement and storage
for such a small lot, and felt that other uses would be more compatible
with the area.
Frank Montoya, the present owner of the property at 100 Riverside, spoke in
favor of the appeal. He felt that the proposed use was compatible with
other businesses in the area, such as the gas station across the street,
and the two quonset huts in the next block. He felt that the City's
landscaping criteria was more appropriate for large businesses such as
Ghent Motors. Mr. Edwards wished to open a very small business. He
stressed that the lot had been an eyesore for a long time, and that what
Mr. Edwards proposed to do would be an improvement to the corner. He also
pointed out that the size and the shape of the lot was very restrictive, so
that there would be no room for future expansion.
7.BA Minutes - Mar #12, 1987 •
Page 8
Jane Goodwin, owner of 416 Jefferson, stated that she was concerned about
the appearance of that corner. Because it was at the entrance to Old Town,
and because of the number of people that drive by that corner, it was
important to maintain its appearance.
Boardmember Walker asked about plans for landscaping. Mr. Barnes replied
that landscape plans would have to be submitted to tha City Forester for
approval. He stated further that City Council had ,just created a new
district, the River Corridor, and there was a possibility that this corner
might be included in the future. The lot is currently zoned IG, in which
an auto body shop is an allowable use.
Jim Madden, realtor, spoke in favor of the variance. He felt that the
appearance of the corner was important, but people who could have preserved
it as a green space such as the City of Fort Collins and the DDA, were not
interested. He thought that Mr. Edwards had a good plan for using the
corner.
Boardmember Lawton stated that the Board's primary concern was the
landscaping, not the use of the lot. He asked if it was the case that any
expansion east of the storage area would require additional landscaping.
Mr. Barnes replied that if parking or vehicle storage was expanded to the
east, additional landscaping would be required. However, if a building was
put there, it would not be required.
Boardmember Walker stated that he would like to have the variance tied to
the proposed plan. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the
variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the site conform
to the site plan submitted and that a 6" vertical curb be installed between
the parking and landscaped areas. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion.
Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Walker. Nays: Lancaster.
Appeal it 1797 Section 118-44 (B), (C) by James Brannon for John Dengler &
Associates, 319 Mathews - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 square feet
to 7,000 square feet, and the lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet for a
new professional office building in the RH zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter.
---Staff recommendation: Approval. Although the size of the proposed
variances are quite a reduction, they are not out of line with similar
variances granted by the Board over the years. Since this is the last
undeveloped lot on the block and is surrounded by multi -family and
commercial uses, this small professional office use would certainly be
compatible."
No notices were returned, no letters were received.
7.BA Minutes - Mar* 2, 1987 •
Page 9
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the lot was
originally platted at 50 feet wide with 7,000 sq. ft. area. A variance
would be required for anything to be built on the lot.
Petitioner John Dengler spoke in favor of the variance. He presented a
rendering to the board showing the building to be two stories, and
residential in character. Mr. Dengler stated that the existing trees would
be preserved. He stated further that the architectural firm employs three
people. The Board found the parking to be adequate.
Boardmember Lawton asked the history behind the lot. Mr. Barnes stated
that all the lots were only 50 feet wide when this part of town was
platted. Mr. Dengler stated that the lot was left over from past
development. A variance would he needed for anything to be built on the
lot.
Mr. Dengler stated that he oversized the building footprint somewhat, and
that the actual building will be smaller than the one located on the
site plan. He proposed to install a wide landscaping strip, much wider
than required by code and he felt that the project would be compatible with
the neighborhood.
Boardmember Lawton said that the plan was a good use of the land.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to approve the variance for the
hardship stated. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett,
Lawton, Lancaster, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal 11 1791 Section 118-91 (F), by Mery Eckman for Adcon Signs, 3500
Carlton - Approved.
---The variance would allow the permanent identification sign for the
"Peach Tree" development to be constructed at a location other than at
the entrance into the housing project. The project is in the RLP zone.
Specifically, the sign will be located at the northeast corner of
Horsetooth and Carlton.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The entrance into the project is
located about 3000 feet from the intersection of Carlton and
Horsetooth. A sign at the entrance would not be visible from
Horsetooth because of this distance and because of the curve in
Carlton. Since Horsetooth will be the street people use to get to
Peach Tree, a sign at the entrance will. not be adequate identification.
---Staff recommendation: None. The petitioner has not submitted the
final drawing of the proposed sign at this time. However, since
almost all of the traffic going to the project will be using
Horsetooth, it is important to have a sign visible from Horsetooth.
Since the entrance on Carlton is not visible from Horsetooth because
of the large curve in the street, the variance makes some sense."
ZBA Minutes - Mar1*12 1987 •
Page 10
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal. He said that Carlton is a
dedicated public street that serves areas other than the Peach Tree
Development. A sign on Carlton would not be visible from Horsetooth.
Bill Bartran, developer, spoke in favor of the variance. The proposed sign
would be painted in colors to match the development. It would be low, and
landscaped to blend in with existing landscaping in the development.
Mr. Bartran said they need to funnel traffic from the main arterial street
to the two entrances to the project. They plan to put directional signs at
the two entrances off Carlton to indicate where the different building
numbers are.
Mr. Barnes explained that the fire department required the directional
signs at the entrance indicating where the building numbers were.
Boardmember Barnett asked if there were any other problems with the sign
meeting code. Mr. Barnes said no - all other code requirements were being
met.
Boardmember Walker stated that there was a legitimate hardship because of
the City's restriction of curb cuts on Horsetooth. For ease of
identification, there needs to be a sign on the main arterial street.
Boardmember Lancaster thought that it was a safety issue, and an
appropriate variance request.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton,
Lancaster, Walker. Nays: None.
Other Business: The Board voted to hold a special meeting on Friday, March
20, 1987, for the purpose of hearing a request for variance at 1000 W.
Laurel.
/e�C.l.�,�-e��
Peter Barnes, Staff Support
Lloyd Walker, Chairman