Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/09/1991ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 9, 1991 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 9, 1991 at 8:30am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Boardmember Carol Wilmarth called the meeting to order. Board members present: Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Lancaster, Garber. Board members absent: Huddleson Staff present: Barnes, Reichert, Eckman Minutes of the regular April 11, 1991 and the special meeting April 25, 1991 were approved. Appeal #1984 - 1113 Maple Street by Bob Creager, owner - approved. The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet in order to allow a one foot addition to the east side of the house. The addition would line up with the existing front wall of the house. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house is quite small and at least 60 years old. The petitioner desires to remodel the house and enlarge the bathroom so that a tub can be installed and the fixtures can be rearranged to be more functional. All this can be accomplished by adding one foot to the east side of the house. The house is already only 12 feet from the property line, and the one foot addition would line up with it. Staff comments: None No APO notices were returned and no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained this is an existing dwelling and the house is 60 years old and very small. The owner would like to add 1 foot to the east side of the house. The side yard set back is a 5 foot side yard which is the minimum required by code. The front yard is set back only 12 feet from the property line. All new construction must comply with the required setbacks, therefore the one foot addition to the west which will line up with the front wall of the building requires a variance. The other houses in the neighborhood appear to be set back closer than 15 feet also. Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 1991 Page 2 Bob Creager, 1113 Maple Street, appeared before the Board and agreed with what Zoning Administrator Barnes had presented. Boardmember Lancaster moved that Appeal #1984 be approved for the hardship stated. Boardmember Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Lancaster, Wilmarth, Garber. The appeal passed. Appeal #1986. by Tony Hughes of Vaught/Frye Architects, 4624 Block South Mason approved with revision. ----- The variance would increase the number of freestanding signs allowed on the property from one (1) to three (3). Specifically, the variance would allow one identification sign and two menu boards. The menu board signs will be 20 square feet each. Petitioner's statement of hardship: To effectively operate as a drive-thru restaurant, it is necessary to have menu boards to serve those customers. Unlike other drive-thrus, this facility is designed with 2.drive-thru lanes, with menu boards for each lane which need to be located 4 car lengths from the service window to provide for sufficient stacking. The business also will need 1 freestanding sign for identification. The proposed signage is under the maximum square footage allowed. Staff comments: Variances to allow one menu board in addition to a freestanding identification sign are fairly common for drive-thru restaurants which are not located on corner lots. This is the first drive-thru with 2 lanes, so this request is somewhat different. The proposed menu board for the lane on the northeast side of the building could be mounted on the building and it would be no further from the lane than the proposed freestanding location. However, mounting it on the building would result in the elimination of one stacking space between the menu board and the pick-up window. If the Board grants this variance, a condition regarding heavy landscaping around the signs would be reasonable. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes read to the Board a letter dated April 23rd from Mr. William Griffith of Back Yard Burgers. This letter was included in the Board's packet. Mr. Barnes then gave out to each Board member a blueprint of the landscaping. The Zoning Code allows one free standing sign per property per street frontage. Mr. Barnes reminded the Board that some drive-thru restaurants are built on corner lots and have two street frontages Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 1991 Page 3 and are allowed two freestanding signs, an identification sign and a menu board. This proposal from Back Yard Burgers is different in that in that this facility is designed with two drive -up lanes. The owner believes that to have adequate circulation on the property it is necessary to have each drive up lane have their own menu board. The proposal here is to allow two menu boards and 1 franchise identification sign along Mason Street. Applicant Tony Hughes of Vaught/Frye Architects, and Virginia Waddell, owner of Back Yard Burgers appeared before the Board. Mr. Hughes described to the Board the landscape of the site, and the colors and logo of the signs. Boardmember Lancaster confirmed with Mr. Hughes that the configuration of the lot or location is not the hardship, but basically the decision of the company to have 2 lanes is the hardship, or therefore is self-imposed. Boardmember Garber asked if the Planning and Zoning Board had seen this plan. Mr. Hughes stated it will go before that Board on May 20,1991 and that he was working with City staff regarding the project. Boardmember Garber asked if it would be possible to attach one menu board on a wall, rather than being a freestanding sign. Mr. Hughes stated that because of stacking car length, and the computer system to operate the business, the sign needed to be placed by the drive-thru, not attached to the building. Boardmember Garber stated he feels this Board does not have unlimited discretion to change codes and regulations. In this case he believes this is a self imposed hardship. Mr. Eckman and Mr. Barnes mentioned that a sign is not considered a sign unless it is visible from the street or the property line. It is debatable if either of these signs are visible from Mason Street because of landscaping, cars, etc. Mr. Barnes is not convinced that the signs are not visible from the property lines to the east and south. Mr. Eckman quoted from the code which requires a look at narrowness, shallowness, or slope of a piece of property or other topographical conditions. He mentioned that this property may be unusual in that one street curves around the lot, so that maybe it functions as a lot with 2 street frontages. No others attended the meeting to speak either in favor or against the appeal. Boardmember Anastasio stated hardship could be that this business will not be on a corner lot, but the configuration of the lot is like being a corner lot the way Mason bends around. 0 Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 1991 Page 4 Boardmember Lancaster is concerned that this Board will be setting a precedent. He feels there may be a problem with the code. Boardmember Lancaster stated if a hedge was put along the east side of the building and you couldn't see the menu board from the property line, then they wouldn't need a variance. Boardmember Garber felt he could support this appeal for some kind of hardship discussed. He wanted it emphasized that for this case only and not a precedent. The sign cannot be changed in size and must be extensively landscaped. Boardmember Lancaster moved to deny Appeal #1986 for the lack of a hardship. Mr. Barnes asked the Board if they might want to consider granting a variance to allow 1 menu board and 1 identification sign. Boardmember Lancaster withdrew his previous motion and made a new motion. He moved the Board approve Appeal #1986 to allow 1 menu board that can be seen from the property line and one identification sign, the hardship being the shape of the property. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Anastasio. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Lancaster, Garber. Appeal #1987. 3401 Worwick Drive by John Wilkens, owner - approved with condition. ----- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet in order to allow a garage addition to the north side of the house. The north lot line on this corner lot is considered to be the front property line by definition, even though the house faces the other street. Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a corner lot, and the house faces the legal side yard. (Worwick Drive). The legal front lot line is really the street side yard. The street side yard setback requirement is 15 feet and the front yard requirement is 20 feet. A variance was granted in 1976 to reduce the front yard requirement to 15 feet. The owner already has a driveway slab for 3 cars and now would like to add a 3rd stall to the garage. He believes it is necessary to build a 12 foot garage to accommodate his vehicle. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 1991 Page 5 Administrator Barnes stated that the house faces the legal side yard. John Wilkens, the owner appeared before the Board. He stated he does residential remodeling for a living and works out of his van. His van sets outside all day. He would like to put the van in the garage for safety reasons. No one attended the meeting to speak either for or against the appeal. Boardmember Gustafson -moved that Appeal #1987 be approved with the condition that the garage being built be no higher than the present structure. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Lancaster, Garber. Appeal #1988. 338 East Stuart Street, by Michelle Are of Republic Garages, the contractor - approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow a new, detached 2-car garage. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: If made to comply, the garage would have to be placed in the middle of the petitioner's back yard. Existing in the back yard are a couple of mature trees which would be lost if the garage were to be placed at the required setbacks. Also, since the rear yard of the property is adjacent to an alley, the garage would not be next to anyone elses rear yard. The proposed garage would also line up with numerous other structures along the alley so as to not to be out of character. Staff comments: None Administrator Barnes stated that the hardship stated was the mature trees in the back yard. Michelle Are of Republic Garage appeared before the Board. The owner was also in attendance. She stated that what Mr. Barnes said was correct. Ann McKinnel, a neighbor appeared before the Board. She stated her garage was close to the alley, as well as many other buildings. She had no problem with the variance. No one was present against the appeal. Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 1991 Page 6 Boardmember Lancaster moved to approve Appeal #1988 for the hardship stated. Boardmember Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Gustafson, Wilmarth, Lancaster, Garber. Meeting was adjourned. Next meeting - June 13, 1991 - City Council Chambers. Respectfully Submitted Carol Wilmarth, Acting Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator CW/PB/aer