Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/11/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 11, 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 11, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall..Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Thede, Lieser. Boardmembers Absent: Leonard Szopinski Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Eckman Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 14, 1985, were amended as follows The minutes of the March 14, 1985 regular meeting were amended on page 14, 4th paragraph to read "5 acres" instead of "S acres". Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes with the above change noted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Motion carried. Appeal #1611. Section 118-93(B)(4) by Richard Malanchuk for Red Lobster, 3301 S. College Avenue - Approved with conditions "--- The variance would increase the sign allowance for the Red Lobster restaurant from 227 squarg feet to 269 square feet. This increase is requested to allow two awning signs. --- Hardship pleaded: See petitioner's letter. "March 5, 1985 City of Fort Collins Office of Building Inspection P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 ATTN: Mr. Peter Barnes RE: Red Lobster #393, South College Avenue Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for your letter of February 21 informing us that the City has approved our administrative change request to allow lighted awnings on the exterior of our building. Since the lettering on the awnings brings our total signage to 269 SF, 42 SF above the allowance determined by the property frontage, we are submitting herewith an application for a variance. Per your require- ments, the following materials are enclosed: 1) $25.00 application fee. 2) Eight copies of the plot plan. 3) Eight copies of the building elevations showing the lettering on the awnings. 4) A list of the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. 5) The legal description of the property. As we explained in our February 5th letter to the Planning Department, our restaurant was operating with unsatisfactory guest counts because of the lack of signage visibility. Many passers-by perceived it as an office building rather than a restaurant. Furthermore, the "Villas" shopping center sign has top billing over our Red Lobster monument sign. making ours less noticeable. In fact, half of the monument sign area of 200 SF is used to advertise the "Villas." Since the awning installation, our guest counts have picked up approxi- mately 25%, making this a profitable unit. We feel the appearance of the building has been enhanced, and we have received many favorable comments to that effect. We appreciate your consideration in this matter, and we respectfully request approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals to increase our signage to 269 SF. Thank vou. Yours sincerely, RED LOBSTER INNS OF AMERICA Richard A. Malanchuk Construction Project Manager" --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the sign allowance for The Villa be reduced by 100 square feet. The main hardship is that The Villa has a sign on the Red Lobster property which is using up 100 square feet of Red Lobster's sign allowance. Without this sign, the restaurant would be well under their allowance and would not need a variance. This hardship though is one created by the property owners and really should be worked out between them. However, since The Villa and Red Lobster both make up the entire PUD, and share parking and curb cuts, reducing the sign allowance for The Villa may be a reasonable solution." No notices or letters were received. -2- Since the lettering on the awnings brings our total signage to 269 SF, 42 SF above the allowance determined by the property frontage, we are submitting herewith an application for a variance. Per your require- ments, the following materials are enclosed: 1) $25.00 application fee. 2) Eight copies of the plot plan. 3) Eight copies of the building elevations showing the lettering on the awnings. 4) A list of the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. 5) The legal description of the property. As we explained in our February 5th letter to the Planning Department, our restaurant was operating with unsatisfactory guest counts because of the lack of signage visibility. Many passers-by perceived it as an office building rather than a restaurant. Furthermore, the "Villas" shopping center sign has top billing over our Red Lobster monument sign. making ours less noticeable. In fact, half of the monument sign area of 200 SF is used to advertise the "Villas." Since the awning installation, our guest counts have picked up approxi- mately 25%, making this a profitable unit. We feel the appearance of the building has been enhanced, and we have received many favorable comments to that effect. We appreciate your consideration in this matter, and we respectfully request approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals to increase our signage to 269 SF. Thank you. Yours sincerely, RED LOBSTER INNS OF AMERICA Richard A. Malanchuk Construction Project Manager" --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the sign allowance for The Villa be reduced by 100 square feet. The main hardship is that The Villa has a sign on the Red Lobster property which is using up 100 square feet of Red Lobster's sign allowance. Without this sign, the restaurant would be well under their allowance and would not need a variance. This hardship though is one created by the property owners and really should be worked out between them. However, since The Villa and Red Lobster both make up the entire PUD, and share parking and curb cuts, reducing the sign allowance for The Villa may be a reasonable solution." No notices or letters were received. -2- 9 0 Petitioner Richard Malanchuk explained to the Board that business had not been doing well at the Red Lobster. They would either have to attract more business or close. They increased the signage and it has definitely helped. The boardmembers felt that this was an economic hardship that they could not consider. Discussion was held regarding the reduction of the Villa's sign allowance. Two options were discussed by the Board. They felt that the hardship was definitely low visibility of the building. Option one would allow the Board to add 42 square feet to the Red Lobsters sign allowance. Option two would decrease The Villa's sign allowance. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the sign allowance for The Villa be reduced by 100 square feet. Also the additional sign allowance must be for the awning use only. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, and Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal #1612. Section 118-91(C) by Harriet Thompson for TKG Association, 3800 Block of S. Timberline Rd. - Approved with conditions "--- The variance would allow a "For Sale" sign in a residential zone to be 15 square feet instead of the permitted 6 square feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The sign would serve to market a 75 acre parcel with approximately 1500 feet of lot frontage on Timberline Road, a major arterial street. This land is all undeveloped now and a small 6 square foot sign would not be noticeable on this size lot. A larger sign would be more visible to cars going 45 m.p.h. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the Board place a time limit on how long the sign can remain up." No notices were returned. One letter was received. "2307 Arctic Fox Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 8, 1985 City of Fort Collins Mr. Peter Barnes P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 -3- Dear Mr. Barnes: I'm writing in response to the letter sent from you dated April 3, 1985 regarding a request for a variance in the size of a "For Sale" sign at 3800 Block of S. Timberline. After some discussion regarding this matter, both my husband and I have concluded that there would be no hardship suffered by not granting this variance. We have both seen this sign at it's current size and do not feel it is necessary to increase the size. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our opinions. Susan E. Palmitesso Fred G. Palmitesso" Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed the Board slides of the property. The existing sign is not visible at all. Petitioner Harriet Thompson said that the existing sign was set as close to road as possible so that it would be visible. If the variance is granted, they will set the sign back further. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that it only remain up for one year or until the property sells, whichever is sooner. The motion was seconded by Board - member Dodder. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal #1613. Section 118-41(E) by Don Schumacher, 1330 W. Oak St. - Aooroved "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet for a new oversized two -car detached garage in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: There is a mature apple tree located in the rear yard which would have to be removed if the garage were setback the required 15 feet. It is an older neighborhood where most of the garages along the alley are already closer than the 1S feet required. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. There were no notices or letters received. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, and Lieser. Nays: None. -4- 0 Appeal #1614. Section 118-43(E), 118-43(F) by Kirk and Kay Herzman, 721 Peterson - Partial Approval "--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet and reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a detached garage addition in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The from the rear lot line better if the addition foot side yard setback what small for a two in the existing garage personal car can be par existing garage is already located only 5 feet along the alley. It would be easier and look lined up with the existing building. If the 5 were complied with, the garage would be some - car garage. The owner stores antique cars and they desire to build on so that their own :ed in the garage. --- Staff recommendation: Approval of the rear yard reduction request, denial of the side yard reduction." There were no notices or letters received. The Board discussed the variance with the applicant. Boardmember Walker felt that there was a definite hardship regarding the rear setback but felt that no hardship existed regarding the side yard setback. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance on the rear yard setback for the hardship pleaded. He also stated that the motion should include denial of the side yard setback. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Walker, Lieser. Nays: Murphy. Appeal #1615. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)[6] by Ed Baldwin for Chuck Rogers, 701 N. College- Partial Approval --- The variance would reduce the required landscape setback along College Avenue from 15 feet to 5 feet, eliminate the required 5 foot landscape setback along the south lot line, and eliminate the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping for a business change of use in the HB zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The building and parking are existing. The use of the building has changed from office to mixed commercial, requiring compliance with the zoning code. All of the parking in the front of the building would be lost if the 15 foot setback were met. The Poudre river runs along the south lot line so it's not practical to landscape the river area since it will be improved later. See peti- tioner's letter for additional information. --- Staff recommendation: Approval of the 15 foot setback reduction along College Avenue and the 5 foot setback elimination along the south lot -5- line. Denial of the request to eliminate the 6% interior landscaping since there is adequate room to provide at least some landscaping." Petitioner Ed Baldwin told the Board that it would be a financial burden to provide the 6% interior landscaping. He asked Peter Barnes the percentage of landscaping that was being provided now. Mr. Barnes said that the property had 0% landscaping on the interior at this point. Boardmember Walker felt that the property in question was a sea of asphalt and desperately needed the interior landscaping. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the setback variance but to deny the reduction of in- terior landscaping. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal #1616. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a) by Dr. William Brotherton, 1700 W. Mulberry -Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required landscape q p parking lot setback along Mulberry from 15 feet to 5 feet, and along Bryan from 10 feet to 5 feet. The variance would also eliminate the required 5 foot land- scape strip along the north lot line for a chiropractors office in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner feels that the required size of the landscape setbacks would create hiding places for vandals and reduce visibility for the police to view the property. The north lot line already has landscaping on the other side of the lot line, so an additional 5 foot wouldn't accomplish anything. The building is existing, but due to this change of use, the landscaping is required. The petitioner is putting in all of the required interior landscaping. --- Staff recommendation: Approval. tion request along Mulberry are is a good plan." The hardships stated for the reduc- not really legitimate but overall it There were no notices or letters received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that this was the third or fourth landscape plan that Dr. Brotherton had presented and that the City Arborist and Mr. Barnes had reviewed. The petitioner said that at a later date they would put a sporting good store at this site and parking would be essential. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance, the hardship being the irregular lot shape and the reduction of parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Walker, Lieser. Nays: Murphy. am Appeal #1617. Section 118-30 by Richard Mattingly for Cowan Concrete, 1100 Timberline Rd. - Approved with condition "--- The variance would allow a building to be built without complying with the regulations required for the IG zone in which it is to be located. Specifically, the variance would allow the construction of a 40' x 70' maintenance building to be built without being in an approved PUD, a condition placed on the property at the time it was annexed into the City. Hardship pleaded: See petitioner's letter --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Petitioner's letter "March 28, 1985 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Cache La Poudre Industrial Park Cowan Concrete Products, Inc. Dear Sirs: On behalf of the attached regarding the nance facilit y our client, Cowan Concrete Products, Inc., we are submitting materials for issuance of i building. your review and action to request a variance building permit for construction of a mainte- The site is situated along the future Timberline Road extension approxi- mately 1,900 feet north of the intersection with East Prospect Street. The maintenance building is to be a 40 foot by 70 foot concrete block structure to be utilized for the maintenance of equipment and vehicles being used in the extraction of gravel materials. As noted on the attached site plan, the maintenance building is to be situated directly east of the existing office structure for Cowan Concrete Products and Mobile Premix. The immediate area is the site of an approved gravel extraction operation with an anticipated completion of mining activities within approximately five years. At the time of completion of mining activities the owner intends to utilize the facilities and buildings as a main facility for Fort Collins operations. At the present time the owner is in the process of submitting a master plan and associated documents to the City for compliance with Planned Unit -7- Development regulations for development. This submittal is scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Board at the end of April. The reason for the variance request is one The present maintenance facility is being leased by the owner and is situated approximately one-half mile east of the proposed site on property which is not owned by Cowan Concrete Products. The lease on these facili- ties expires August 15, 1985 at which time the owner will be in position of not having a maintenance facility which is vital to its operations. In 1982 the City commenced design on the future extension of Timberline Road through the area of the gravel operation. At that time the property was situated in Larimer County with an exemption for construction of the present office structure as well as future associated structures, such as the subject maintenance facility structure. City staff contacted Cowan Concrete Products with a request that they annex the property to the City with a condition for future development as a P.U.D. The owner complied with this request but did so without understanding that this decision would affect their transitional use. When the owner approached the City recently to obtain a building permit for the maintenance facility they were informed that to obtain the permit they would have to master plan the complete area of ownership as well as provide all associated documents for approval of a Planned Unit Development which they had never intended to develop them- selves. Even so, the owners contracted with Shiloh, Inc. Technical consultants to provide the required planning and engineering to comply with the City's request. At this time we are proceeding with the master plan and final phase one as fast as the City schedule will allow but the final approval of this procedure will not solve the owner's immediate problem regarding the impending loss of maintenance facilities. Therefore, Cowan Concrete Products, Inc. hereby respectfully request that a variance be granted which will allow the issuance of a building permit for the required maintenance facility with the understanding that architectural renderings and asso- ciated documents, as normally required, will be submitted to the City with the request for the building permit. The owner also agrees to continue with the master plan process presently underway for the total property as requested. If there are any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Richard E. Mattingly Project Manager cc: Mr. Marvin Kercher Cowan Concrete Products, Inc." 10 After reading the petitioner's letter, Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that The PUD and the Master Plan be submitted for approval. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Walker. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal #1618. Section 118-41(B), 118-41(F) by Larry Schliske, 1401 Ox- borough Ln. -Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required street side setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for a garage addition to a single family home in the RLP zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner desires to add another bay to an existing 2-car garage. This is the only feasible location for the addition. It will not interfere with required traffic site distances. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Schliske showed the Board where he intended to add on to the garage. It would line up with the original roof line. Boardmember Murphy made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. Appeal #1619. Section 118-43(C) by Larry Michaud for Housing Rehab, 205 Third St. - Approved "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a move -on house in the RM zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is existing. The house currently on the lot is beyond restoration. An existing house will be moved onto the lot to replace it. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Larry Michaud, Housing Rehab, told the Board that this existing house does not have any indoor plumbing. There are out houses on the lot. They plan to bring sewer to the house that is being moved in. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. 10 Appeal #1620. Section 118-41(C) by Ted Garfield, 1616 Mathews - Approved with conditions "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone. The new house would replace an older existing house which will be torn down. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing house is too small for the peti- tioner's family. The construction of it is such that an addition to it is not feasible. When the new house is finished the old one will be torn down. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the existing house must be demolished within 30 days of the occupancy of the new house. There were no notices returned. One letter was received. "Box H Buffalo, Wyoming 82834 April 8, 1985 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 8OS22 Dear Mr. Barnes: Your legal notice of April 3, 1985, relative to a request for a modifica- tion of the zoning code of the City of Fort Collins, for a variance by Mr. Ted Garfield for 1616 Mathews, was received by us Saturday, April 6, 1985. This is to confirm our telephone call to you as of 9:10 a.m., Monday, April 8, 1985. We are opposed to this construction of a house as explained to us by you. We feel that a two a story (garden level) house built that near the front of the lot would cause a devaluation of our property. We would have no objections to Mr. Garfield enlarging the ground floor of his present house, or construction of a new one level ranch type house at the same distance back from the street as our house at 1612 Mathews. Any new house must be at least the legal distance from our property line. If a new house is built, we feel that the old house should be removed before construction is started on the new house. Will you please let us know as soon as possible the action of the Zoning Board? Sincerely, Joseph L. Trierweiler & Edna M. Trierweiler" -10- Petitioner Ted Garfield pointed out on the slides that were shown to the Board that the houses on this side of the street set back quite far on the lots. His existing house is built on a slab without footings. The elec- trical and plumbing are extremely old and need to be replaced. There is no insulation anywhere in the house. It would be too expensive to renovate this house. Building a house that would better suit their needs is more feasible. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the existing house must be demolished within 30 days of the occupancy of the new house. (This does not include removal of the slab.) The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Walker, Lieser. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted. Bernard Murphy, Chairman 1- Peter Barnes, Staff Support -11-