Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/22/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 22, 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 10, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Boardmembers: Johnson, Dodder, Murhpy, Lieser, Szopinski, Walker and Thede. Boardmembers absent: None. Staff members Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 1984, Approved as published The minutes of the December 13, 1984 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal #1589. Tabled to the February 14, 1985 regular meeting at appli- cants request. Motion was made and seconded by Boardmembers Johnson and Dodder respectively to approve this request. Appeal #1590. Section 118-81(C)(1) by Douglas Viita, 722 E. Laurel - ADDroved There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would allow the petitioner to use part of a detached building for a home occupation. Specifically, the petitioner proposes to use part of his detached garage for a silk screening business. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner's home is small, around 850 square feet. There is no space available to use in the home for his business which is mainly wholesale (supplying products to local businesses). There is no noise or traffic associated with the business, so there should be no negative impact on the neighbors. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." 9 The petitioner explained that he only does this business on a part time basis. He picks up t-shirts, caps, etc. from some large businesses in town and after they have been silk screened, he delivers them. Therefore there will be no traffic coming to the house. Mr. Viita said that he is renting the house and works as a sod carrier during the day. If the business picks up he would like to spend more time at it. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Lieser and Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1591. Section 118-41(F) by Bob Weideman, 715 Laporte Avenue - Approved There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required side q yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet for an addition to an existing single family home in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing house is already only 2 feet from the, lot line. The petitioner desires to put a bedroom addition to the rear of the house. For structural and aesthetic purposes the most efficient and desirable location for the addition is along the same line as the existing. --- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbor to the west." Boardmember Murphy stepped down because of a conflict of interest. Petitioner Weideman explained his addition to the Board. Boardmember Szopinski asked if there were any problems with fire codes because the buildings will be so close together. Mr. Weideman said he hadn't submitted plans to Building Inspection yet. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: John- son, Dodder, Walker, Lieser, and Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1592. Section 118-43(C), 118-11(definitions) by Larry Michaud for Housing Rehabilitation, 328 Park Street - Approved There were no notices or letters received. Housing Rehab representative Larry Michaud explained to the Board that this was one of the rehab projects to demolish the existing house and replace it with one that was more liveable. He said that even though this house has a foundation visible, the foundation is not in the ground but instead rests on top of the ground. -2- 0 -li7 Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Lieser, and Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1593. Section 118-91(B), 118-91(F), 1180-95(A) by Rick Brown for WJM Architects, 1050 Hobbit St.- Denied No notices were returned. Three letters were received. "City of Fort Collins Office of Building Inspection 300 Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Dear Mr. Barnes, I strongly object to granting a sign variance for Landmark. Three differ-' ent appraiser have told me that this ugly development across from me has already lowered my property value by $10,000 and that even at a greatly reduced price will make it very difficult for me to sell my place. Two other homeowners in the immediate vicinity have similar economic stories to tell. Actually, greatly reduced property value due such a development comes as no surprise. The homeowners in this area fought this addition for years to no avail. Not only do I not want any large signs erected, I want the promised land- scaping put in this spring as soon as weather permits. Please keep on top of this matter and try to help us salvage whatever we can. Respectfully yours, Berniece H. Zingg" "Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Office of Building Inspection City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 300 W. Laporte Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80522 7 January 1985 RE: Sign Variance request - Rick Brown for WJM Architects Appeal No. 1593. -3- Dear Mr. Barnes - I am writing as a member of the executive committee and spokesman for the Prospect- Shields Neighborhood Association in regard to Appeal No. 1593. The neighborhood objects to unwarranted precedence, aesthetics, and neigh- borhood compatibility. Our specific objections are: 1) Safety - The requested variance in set -back for the sign at the inter- section of Shields and Hobbit Streets and the vertical format of the sign (exceeding 42 inches) create a safety hazard to traffic entering Shields from Hobbit. The sign obstructs a clear field of vision. The volume of traffic on Shields requires strict adherence to sign location to eliminate the hazard that signs cause. Future housing projects using Hobbit Street access will also want similar signs (and variances) at the same intersection. A variance on right-of-way will set an unwarranted precedent at this corner. We recommend that the sign at Shields and Hobbit be a horizontal (rather than vertical) sign, not to exceed 42 inches in height; be within the allowable 35 square feet; and be placed at the allowable set -back. 2) Sign location - A sign at the corner of Prospect and Shields Streets seems poorly located for information and direction. It is at the rear of the property and the actual entrance to the project is misleading. At some future time, several multi -family projects will also use Hobbit as an access street. With no sign at the proper entrance, there will be confusion as to which project is Landmark. We recommend that no sign be placed at the intersec- tion of Prospect and Shields Streets and that the principal sign be placed at the actual project entrance on Hobbit Street. 3) Sign size - The Prospect -Shields neighborhood is residential, not commercial. Therefore, any signs should be strictly informational or directional and should not be oversized for advertising. We recommend that both signs under appeal be maintained at the allowed 35 square feet per face. 4) Interior Illumination - Zoning codes require indirect illumination only for the zone under consideration. The implication is that indirect illumi- nation is appropriate for residential areas and interior illumination applies to commercial signs. Since Landmark is residential; in a residential neighborhood; and we want to maintain that character; we recommend that only indirect illumination be approved for the Landmark signs. We see no evidence of hardships that justifies granting any of the re- quested variances on Appeal No. 1S93. WJM Associates should be able to work within the codes to provide adequate and appropriate information and direction signs for the project. -4- The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have demonstrated commendable sensitivity to safety, appropriateness, and compatibility in judging the many appeals for sign variances in Fort Collins and have exercised com- mendable common sense in guiding its policy on signs. Only with the Zoning Board of Appeals continued attention to inappropriate requests for vari- ances can Fort Collins maintain its uncluttered image. Sincerely, Freeman M. Smith Executive Committee Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Associatikn 1000 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526" "I will be unable to attend the January 10th meeting. Am opposed to the variance. Believe we should not tamper with the Code except in very, unusual circumstances. This is not one of them. Carl Jorgensen 1445 Whedbee Fort Collins, CO 80524 484-7117" Boardmember Dodder abstained because of a conflict of interest. "--- The variance would allow two permanent housing project signs for the "Landmark PUD" to have interior illumination instead of indirect illumination. The variance would also allow one of the identification signs to be 66 square feet per face instead of the required 35 square feet and to be located somewhere else on the site rather than at the entrance into the project as required by code. Also, the variance would allow the other sign to be setback 0 feet from the right-of-way instead of the required 15 feet for a groundsign located within 50 feet of a driveway or street. --- Hardship pleaded: The entrances into the project are off of Hobbit Street, which is a minor street. Signs at those entrances would not provide adequate identification. It is more desirable to place the sign where the major source of traffic would originate. The site slopes away from the street dramatically, and to avoid it appearing as an underground sign the structure has to be about 8 feet tall. The sign face is only 21 square feet though. Interior illumination is desirable because of aesthetics and vandalism. The sign located at a zero setback is only 18 inches wide and is 25 feet from the curb, so it presents no visual obstruction. Staff recommendation: Approval. -5- Petitioner Rick Brown for WJm Architects presented the variance to the Board. He said the owners feel that this is a very major piece of property and they feel very strongly about having it identified. They feel they definitely need the sign at the corner of Shields and Prospect. The Boardmember asked for copies of the letters received so they could deal with each issue separately. Freeman Smith, 1000 W. Prospect, said that he had written the letter and would be happy to explain anything. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes pointed out the complexity of the code. Petitioner Rick Brown reiterated his hardship to the Board. He explained that because of the design required to get the P.U.D. they couldn't get access off Hobbit. Opposing resident, Freeman Smith, gave a short run down of the neighbors complaints that were stated in his letter. The Board discussed the variance and said that they didn't like the sign on Prospect and Shields. They thought the sign should be redesigned. Board - member Szopinski asked if the petitioner would like to have the matter tabled until something could be worked out. Mr. Brown said that he would prefer to either have the variance granted or denied so that they would know how to proceed. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Johnson, Walker, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: Murphy. Appeal #1594. Section 118-43(C) by Cathy Graepler and Connie Lyle, 1730 Whedbee - Approved There were no notices returned. Four letters were received. "January 9, 1985 To Whom It May Concern: I have been a member of the Association of Family Day Care Homes of Larimer County for the six years that Cathy Graepler and Connie Lyle have been members. They held offices several years in this association. They have been involved in public relations and feel strongly about the importance of good day care in Fort Collins. I have observed their attitudes and practices in day care. Cathy and Connie maintain very high standards in child care regarding safety, nutri- tion, education and organization. They have an excellent reputation with experts in the child care field. Because of their conscientious attitude and their abilities, any day care business they are in charge of will be an asset to the community. I know they will maintain the same high standards in their day care center as they have done in operating their day care homes. Sincerely, Julie J. Haralson President Association of Family Day Care Fort Collins, CO 80525 January 9, 1985 City Zoning Board Fort Collins, CO 8052S Gentlemen: The Graeplers have lived across the street from us for the last 4 years., Cathy Graepler has operated her Day Care Home in a competent and profes-, sional manner. Her business has never caused us any noise or traffic problems. Based upon our experience as her neighbor, I have no doubt that Cathy would manage a clean and orderly Day Care Home. Sincerely, Mrs. Ronald R. Carpenter" "January 7, 1985 Dear Sirs: We have lived behind the Graepler's for nearly six years. They are good neighbors and are very conscientious about the people that live around them. The Graepler's keep their yard clean and provide a nice play area for their children and the children of the day care. Noise is never a problem from the day care which Cathy is currently pro- viding. We feel she is very sensitive to others concerns and has always acted respectfully toward them. We assure you that Cathy's day care expansion would be a positive addition to the community. Sincerely, Daniel L. Henderson 800 Cambridge Dr. Fort Collins, CO" -7- • "January 8, 1985 To Whom This May Concern: I have been a neighbor to Connie Lyle and Cathy Graepler for the past 5 years. During this time period both women have been day care mothers. I have not experienced any problems with additional traffic, noise a or feel that in anyway they have lowered my standard of living. I can only attest to the fact that they have been good and considerate neighbors, and in no regard has their businesses affected me. Mary Ann Luna" "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width for a child care center in the RM zone from 75 feet to 64 feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The lot is existing and there is no additional land available to buy. The petitioner's have been looking for a zone which, allows a child care center for some time and there isn't much avail- able in the appropriate zones. The property has more lot area than is required and more outdoor play area than required, so it is felt this will mitigate the lack of lot width. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the occupancy load be limited to 32 children." Cathy Graepler and Connie Lyle, petitioners, explained to the Board that they would like to expand their existing day care centers by purchasing the property at 1730 Whedbee and making it into a day care center. They felt that the letters from their neighbors spoke for their credibility. Richard Parkins, 1806 Whedbee spoke against the variance. Mr. Parkins said that he had nothing against children but was concerned about parking problems that might arise. Marge Moseman, 1850 Whedbee, said that she wasn't opposed but would like to find out what was planned for the house as far as colors were concerned. She did not like the idea that it might be painted rainbow colors as some day care centers are. Ms. Lyle and Ms. Graepler assured her that they would be painting the house earth tone colors. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: Murphy. Appeal #1595. 505 W. Drake - Tabled until February 14, 1985. M • 11 Appeal #1596. Section 118-41(C) by Roger Strauss for Tri-Trend, Inc., 3307 Dunbar Avenue - Approved There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width for a new single family home in the RLP zone from 60 feet to 59 feet. --- Hardship pleaded: Dunbar Avenue is the 100 year flood channel for the subdivision and the City requires that all buildings on Dunbar be set back 30 feet to accommodate the flood channel. Therefore the house cannot be relocated in any manner on the lot to achieve the required lot width. The home is an on -site manufactured house, and all the homes in the subdivision have one standard size foundation, so chang- ing models would not help. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." The petitioner was not present at the meeting but the Board decided to make . a decision on it anyway. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that Tri-Trend manufactures housing units in a building on Horsetooth. They have one size foundation in which a machine comes in and stamps the hole and the foundation is put there. Dunbar is in the 100 year flood channel and a 30 foot setback is required. There was no one present to speak in favor or against the variance. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1597. Section 118-41(8) by Doug Dohn for Drahota Construction, 131 N. Pearl St. - Approved There were no notices returned. Two letters were received. "January 7, 1985 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins Dear Sir: In regards to the request, by Doug Dohn, for Drahota Construction for the property at 131 N. Pearl, we have no objections to the request, . We feel it will enhance the neighborhood. C1 CI We are property owners at 122 N. Pearl. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Glahn" "January 7, 1985 City of Fort Collins Zoning Administrator Dear Mr. Barnes: I regret to say it will be impossible for me to attend the hearing on. a variance of Code Sections 118-41(B) requested by Doug Dohn for Drahota Construction. As I understand this - it is to be a discussion as to whether or not Mr.' Dohn should be allowed to complete the addition on his home at 131 N. Pearl St. as planned, since the plans do not coincide with the present Zoning restrictions in this area according to lot size. Mr. and Mrs. Dohn have busily been making improvements in their home now, and are making quite an extensive addition onto the back part of the house as well. I live directly across the street from the Dohns house to which the addi- tion is being made - and if Mr. Dohns reasons given at the hearing, are acceptable as to reasons for the size of this addition in this RL zone and thus are approved by the Zoning Board, without making a complete change in the restrictions on Code Section 118-41(B) - I then - thus have no objec- tions to make on this. I do not believe zoning restrictions on this will thus be changed due to this case.(?) I have been a resident in Fort Collins since September 1932 and in having our home here at 128 Pearl St, built for us, moved into it April 1, 1940 and residing in it ever since. My husband Joe being deceased ins since July 14, 1971. Sincerely, Mrs. J.S. Schumacher P.S. I realize this is a difficult problem for the City of Fort Collins to solve and keep every one happy and I'm sure you'll do your best to do so." -10- "--- The variance would allow a house in the RI zone on a 6225 square foot lot to have 22S4 square feet of floor area instead of the allowed 2075 square feet. Since the lot area is required to be 3 times as big as the floor area, the lot would need 6762 square feet of area in order to allow a house this big. --- Hardship pleaded: There is no additional land available to buy. The owner wants to finish the attic area of a new addition. The only change to the outside appearance would be the addition of a dormer. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Boardmember Dodder abstained from voting on this variance. Zoning Admini- strator Peter Barnes explained that the street in question runs between Mountain and Laporte Avenue. The new addition is already under construc- tion. Two months ago a permit was issued for this addition. When the petitioner brought in the plans, the floor area was calculated and the petitioner was informed that with the attic area finished a variance would, be needed. They decided to delete the finished attic area. They now feel that they would like the attic finished and are asking for a variance. Alyce Milton, 116 Pearl St., said that she had a few reservations about the project. She said that the neighborhood was not too thrilled with the big addition on the back of the house but in support of the variance, finishing off the attic space would not enlarge the house any more. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1598. Section 118-41(C) by John.Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor, 405 Tenth St. - Approved There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: This is an existing lot platted with only 50 feet of width. A new home will be built on the lot. Nothing can be built without a variance. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Zoning Administrator where no matter what showed slides of the Peter Barnes explained they do with the lot, a lot in question. -11- that this is one of the cases variance would be needed. He Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1599. Section 118-41(C) by John Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor, 419 Tenth St. - Approved There were no notices or letters received. "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: Same as Appeal #1598. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Boardmember Johnson said that he felt the project was the same as Appeal #1598 and made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodd Szopinski. Yeas: Johnson, , Dodder, Murphy, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: None. her Business Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reiterated to the Board that Joe Vansant was the petitioner that came before the Board last month asking for a number of variances which would allow him to build a home at 1113 West Olive which is the former location of a Light & Power Substation. There was some opposition from the neighborhood and the appeal was denied on a 3-2 vote. It's the third time that that particular property has come before the board and each time it has been denied 3-2. Mr. Vansant has new evidence which he feels will make a difference in the Board's decision. He has a letter from an adjacent property owner who supports this variance. He is asking the Board to reconsider the appeal at next month's regular meeting. The by-laws require that the Zoning Board can only reconsider an appeal which has been denied or dismissed if new evidence has been sub- mitted. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to rehear the variance at either the February or March meeting. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Murphy, Lieser, Szopinski. Nays: None. -12-