Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/12/1994ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 12, 1994 Regular Meeting 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 12, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Cuthbertson, Gustafson, Anastasio, Michelena, Clark and Perica. Board member absent: Huddleson The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gustafson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Support Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Peter Barnes Ann Chantler Paul Eckman The minutes from the April meeting were approved. Appeal 2099, 1805 South Shields Street, by Richard Ummel, approved. Section 29-591(6), 29-595(d). The variance would allow a new 30 square foot, two sided ground sign to be located at the southwest corner of Shields and Spring Creek Lane, instead of at the driveway entrance into the New Colony Apartments complex. The variance would also allow the sign to be located within 5 feet of the interior side lot line instead of the required 15 feet. The variances are requested for a new sign advertising the New Colony Apartments located in the RP zone. The existing "New Colony Apartments" are located in the R zone. The existing "New Colony Apartments" sign located further to the west wall will be removed. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The Board has granted similar variances in the past. The Board may place conditions regarding size, height, etc. on any variance which might be granted. r Zoning Board of Appeals May 12, 1994 Page 2 Three letters were received from emergency agencies in favor of this appeal. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes read the letter from the petitioner. Mr. Barnes then explained the codes that pertain to this variance. He also pointed out the location of the medical buildings that were built after the apartments, that block the view of the sign to the apartments. Richard Ummel, project manager for New Colony Apartments, appeared before the Board. He stated emergency personnel drive right past the entrance to the apartments because they can't find the entrance. Mr. Ummel stated the proposed location of the new sign would be in a place where on -coming traffic from both sides could see and trees would not block the sign. Board member Anastasio stated he felt this was a reasonable request, and a public safety issue, he supported the appeal. Board member Michelena stated the appeal was intended to meet the code, he agreed with the location and would also enhance safety. Board member Michelena moved to approve this appeal with the condition that the existing sign be removed. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Gustafson, Anastasio, Michelena, Clark, Perica. The motion passed. Anneal 2100 912 West Oak by Sara Norris owner. approved. Section 29-115(5). The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow an addition to the rear of a single family home in the NCL zone. The addition will line up with the existing west wall of the home. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The rear portion of the home is settling and needs to be repaired or replaced.The house is small and additional living area is desired. The lot is narrow (401) and the existing home is already at a 3.5' setback. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals May 12, 1994 Page 3 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this house was located in the older part of town with a narrow lot width of 401. Brian Esken appeared before the Board. He stated he and Sara Norris will be married in June and blending families. They wish to make the house larger, keep the roof line as is, and keep the charm of the older house. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Anastasio stated this was a classic example of old town and would support this appeal. Board member Perica moved to approve this appeal for the hardship stated. Board member Clark seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Gustafson, Anastasio, Michelena, Clark, Perica. The motion passed. Anneal 2101 1500 Freedom Lane by Kelly and Pam Benson approved. Section 29-133(5). The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5 feet to 4.3 feet for a one-story addition to a single family home. The east wall of the addition would line up with the existing east wall of the house. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ---- Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes read the letter from the petitioner. Mr. Barnes stated there are three site plans. 1) 1978 when the house was constructed, 2) Improvement survey, 3) Proposed addition. It appears the house was built on the lot wrong and a adjustments were attempted to correct the error. Mr. Barnes stated the Board was to use the 2nd survey for this appeal. Mr. Barnes stated this appeal will comply with rear setbacks, but two large trees will limit where they can add on to the house. Kelly Benson, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated when he applied for the permit he noticed the setbacks were contradicting. No one was in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Cuthbertson stated this seems to be an extraordinary circumstance and a reasonable request. A Zoning Board of Appeals May 12,1994 Page 4 In response to a question from the Board, City Attorney Paul Eckman, stated this error would be considered a hardship created by the developer some years ago and not by the applicant. Board chairman Gustafson stated this was not the owners fault and not self-inflicted. Board member Anastasio stated this was a small lot and the owner was trying to improve his home. Board member Perica moved to approve this appeal for the hardship stated. Board member Cuthbertson moved to second the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Gustafson, Anastasio, Michelena, Clark, Perica. The motion passed. Anneal 2102. 500-502 South College by Carter McKenzie buyer, approved. Section 29-303. The variance would reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 50 feet in order to allow the use of the existing building to be converted from a duplex to an ice cream parlor/single family dwelling. The ice cream parlor will also be the residents in the dwelling. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is existing and was plotted with only a 50 foot lot width. There is no additional land available to buy. This same variance would be required for any change of use. The proposed use will have a minimal impact in that the two employees of the ice cream parlor will also be the residents in the dwelling. ----- Staff Comments: Similar variances have been granted by the Board in the past. This property is about the only remaining all -residential property in the area along College Avenue. Everything else is commercial. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this is presently a residental house and this proposed use does not qualify as a home occupantion. The duplex next door has been converted to commercial use and at that time no variance was needed. Mr. Barnes stated presently the location has two parking spaces along the alley and 30 public spaces in the Safeway parking lot. Mr. Barnes reminded the Board that parking is an issue to be determined by the bank and the owner and this Board was to concentrate on the variance being requested. Zoning Board of Appeals May 12, 1994 Page 5 Chuck Bowling, realtor representing the McKenzies, appeared before the Board. He presented a letter from the Landmark Preservation Committee stating support of this variance. Mr. Bowling stated the buyers would like to make this 1/2 single family living space and 1/2 an ice cream parlor. The owners would live and work there, so no employees would be needed and thus parking would not be an issue. This proposed business would be a walk in rather than drive-in type of business. Carter McKenzie appeared before the Board. He stated they would like to restore the house, live in half of it and make an old fashion Italian ice cream parlor out of the other half. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board chairman Gustafson stated it would be nice to see something done to that corner. Board member Anastasio stated it was an older building and supported this appeal. Board member Michelena moved to approve this appeal with the condition that the variance is only good as long as the use remains single family dwelling and fast food. Board member Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Michelena, Clark, Anastasio. Nayes: Cuthbertson. Abstain: Perica. The motion passed. Appeal 2103, 1025 West Oak Street by Mark Charkey, approved. Section 29-119(4), 29-119(5). The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet, and would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a new 28' x 28' detached garage. The new garage will replace the existing garage which encroaches into the alley. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner desires side entry doors rather than alley -facing doors to avoid back up space which necessitates the garage being located farther to the west. The owner would like to place the garage at a 0 foot rear setback in order to keep it farther to the south, so that it will be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and in order to preserve trees located north of the proposed location. Zoning Board of Appeals May 12, 1994 Page 6 Staff Comments: None Zoning administrator Peter Barnes encroaches into the alley. stated the present garage Mark Charkey, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated he talked with neighbors and they indicated they would be happy to see the garage area cleaned up. Mr. Charkey stated he needed the garage doors on the east side to allow turning access. He also stated he needs a larger garage for hobby work. Board member Anastasio stated he was in agreement with the rear setback, but could not find a hardship for the side setback. Board member Michelena agreed with Board member Anastasio. Mark Charkey stated he felt if he moved the garage back onto the property it would disturb the character of the neighborhood. Board chairman Gustafson stated the proposed garage was bigger than the average garage and could not find a hardship for the side setbacks. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Perica stated he could not find a hardship either and moved to deny appeal #2103 for a lack of hardship. Board member Michelena seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Michelena, Clark, Perica. Nayes: Cuthbertson. The motion passed. The meeting was adjourned. 11� /`' L�,�- Robert Gustafsoh, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 12, 1994 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal 2099. The variance would allow a new, 30 sq. ft., two- sided ground sign to be located at the southwest corner of Shields and Spring Creek Lane, instead of at the driveway entrance into the New Colony Apartments complex. The variance would also allow the sing to be located within 5 feet of the interior side lot line instead of the required 15 feet. The variances are requested for a new sign advertising the New Colony Apartments located in the RP zone. The existing "New Colony Apartments" sign located further to the west will be removed. Section 29-591(6), 29-595(d) by Richard Ummel, 1805 S. Shields St.. 3. Appeal 2100. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow an addition to the rear of a single family home in the NCL zone. The addition will line up with the existing west wall of the home. Section 29-119(5) by Sara Norris, 912 West Oak Street. 4. Appeal 2101. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5 feet to 4.3 feet for a one-story addition to a single family home. The east wall of the addition would line up with the existing east wall of the house. Section 29-133(5) by Kelly and Pam Benson, 1500 Freedom Lane. 5. Appeal 2102. The variance would reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 50 feet in order to allow the use of the existing building to be converted from a duplex to an ice cream parlor/single family dwelling. The ice cream parlor would be located on the north portion of the ground floor. Section 29-303 by Carter McKenzie, 500-502 South College Avenue. 6. Appeal 2103. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet, and reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a new 281X28' detached garage. The new garage will replace the existing garage which encroaches into the alley. Section 29-119(4), 29-119(5) by Mark Charkey, 1025 W. Oak Street. 7. Other business.