Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/11/1991ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 11, 1991 Regular Meeting - 8:30AM MINUTES The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 11, 1991 at 8:30am in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Garber, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster and Wilmarth. Staff Members Present: Barnes and Reichert Paul Eckman, City Attorney Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 14, 1991 were approved as published. Appeal #1979. 1214 West Mountain Avenue by C.D.Rhodes - approved. ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet in order to allow a 4 foot addition to be built onto the front of the existing garage in the RL zone. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing garage is already only 2 feet from the east lot line. It is only 17.5 feet deep. so it does not have adequate width, the wall of the addition must line up with the wall of the existing building. Staff Comments: None No APO notices were returned and no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained this lot was in an older part of town. The owner wanted to add 4 feet to the front of the garage. Mr. Barnes has checked with the Chief Building Official to see if the building materials needed to be fire rated. The requirement would be waived because of the existing situation. Mr. C.D. Rhodes stated that the garage was originally built in the 1920's. He wanted to add on to make it more convenient for he and his wife. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 2 No others attended the meeting to speak either in favor of the variance or against the appeal. Boardmember Garber moved to approve Appeal 1979 for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Wilmarth. The appeal passed. Appeal #1980. by Mike Wittmer, sign contractor, 127 North Howes - approved with condition. ----- The variance would allow two freestanding signs on one street frontage. Specifically, the variance would allow a new single -face, 20 square foot, freestanding sign advertising St. Joseph Elementary School. The sign will be placed in front of the flag pole on Howes Street. A 19 square foot sign already exists on Howes Street in front of the parish building. The new sign would therefore be the second sign on Howes. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The school does not have a sign. The school, the church, and the parish building are all located on the big lot, but each building serves a different use. The school is entitles to put a sign along LaPorte Avenue, but they feel it would be more appropriate in front of the main entrance on Howes Street. If the school were on its own lot, a variance would not be needed. Staff comments: If the Board grants the variance, a condition could be placed on it so that no freestanding sign could ever be placed along LaPorte as long as the Howes Street sign remains up. In essence then, this would become a variance which simply moves the LaPorte sign to Howes. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes stated that per ordinance only one freestanding sign per street frontage per property is allowed. The sign could be placed at an angle on the corner of LaPorte and Howesand no appeal would be needed since the sign would then be classifibd as a LaPorte Avenue sign. The school would like the sign on Howes street. Mr. Wittmer, the sign contractor was present and stated the sign would be 20 square feet. The Code would allow a sign as large as 35 square feet. I Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 3 No APO notices were returned and no letters received. No others attended the meeting to speak either in favor or against the appeal. Boardmember Gustafson moved that appeal 1980 be approved with the condition that no sign be put on LaPorte avenue as long as there is a sign on Howes street. Boardmember Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Wilmarth. Appeal #1981. John Giuliano for the owners of 3325 Citation Court. Approved with conditions. ----- The variance would allow a 6 foot high privacy fence to be located within 75 feet of the centerline intersection of two streets. Specifically, it would allow the fence on this corner lot to be located within 47 feet of the center of the intersection. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot has frontage on 3 streets, Citation, Meadowlark and Riva Ridge. Normally, a corner lot has frontage on only 2 streets, and the backyard is not fronting on another street. However, on this lot, the backyard does not front on a street. Since the owners have small children, it is desirable to provide a fenced yard. While the fence would be within the 75 foot sight distance, no hazard is present because Meadowlark Avenue curves away from Riva Ridge, so people can see oncoming traffic. ----- Staff comments: The City Transportation department has surveyed the intersection and has determined that the sight obstruction presented by this fence is minimal, but they are recommending that a portion of the corner of the fence be removed in order to aid southbound turning movements from Meadowlark onto Riva Ridge. The code would allow a fence within 75 feet of the intersection if that portion of the corner of the fence does not exceed 32 inches in height. It may be as high as 42 inches if it is constructed of split rail with 12 inch spacing between horizontal members. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure an adequate and safe sight distance for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. The Board is authorized to grant relief from the requirements of .the Code due to various circumstances, "provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this Article...". (Section 29-41 (c). 1 9 0 Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 4 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes stated there was a memorandum from Syl Mireles, Traffic Technician for the City stating that to improve the sight distance problem and comply with the traffic department's standards, two minimum changes were needed: 1) Remove the two wooden corner posts, that are located on the northwest corner radius. 2) Install a stop sign at the southwest corner for eastbound traffic and a "Stop Ahead" sign prior to the intersection. Mr. Barnes also explained that a portion of the house was actually within 75 feet of the intersection but this was not a violation since the code only deals with fences in this area. It is assumed that the normal building setback requirements will take care of buildings with regards to being an obstruction. John Giuliano appeared before the Board stating that the lot was unusual in that it has 3 frontage streets. Mr. Giuliano was present when Mr. Mireles and Mr. Barnes inspected the site and Mr. Giuliano agreed with Mr.Mireles that by removing 2 posts, there would be an improvement in visibility. Mr. Giuliano is constructing the fence and suggested that a possibility would be to have a solid 6 foot fence and then roll down to 30" around the corner on Meadowlark and Riva Ridge. This type of fence would comply but a portion would still be 6 feet, so that not much would be accomplished. He indicated that having the 6 foot fence would help slow down traffic and would create a safer situation. He pointed out the black tire marks on the sidewalk to show that people take the turn too close. Boardmember Lancaster questioned if the site obstruction would benefit traffic as Mr. Giuliano stated. Boardmember Huddleson questioned if the circumstances warranted a hardship just because the lot was bordered on 3 sides. Mr. Barnes explained that this is an unusual situation because corner lots usually have only 2 street frontages. This means that normally, the rear yard is adjacent to another lot, not another street as is the case here. Under normal situations there is no problem for a homeowner to fence the back yard because the fence would easily be 75 feet from the center of the intersection. If there is a problem in normal situations, it involves a small area which may effect the front part of the fence, but still allowing the entire back yard to be fenced. Here, however, the back yard could not be entirely fenced because of the additional street to the rear. zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 5 The owner, Mitch Burroughs came before the Board and stated that when he purchased the lot he had no idea what the code was regarding the placement of a fence. He wanted a safe place for his children to play. Boardmember Lancaster stated that by moving 2 posts the fenced yard would lose approximately 128 square feet and it appeared this may be one solution. Glenn Walburg appeared before the Board opposing the appeal. He stated he lives in the neighborhood and is also a contractor for Everitt Homes. His children walk to Beattie Elementary School along Meadowlark. He sees that if the fence stands as is pictured it would be dangerous to children and bicyclists. He agreed that the posts need to be moved to make the corner more visible. He also stated that Everitt used to own that particular lot and had a contract on it. After informing the perspective owners about the need for a variance on the fence location, the buyer decided to purchase a different lot. Mr. Walburg stated that the contractor should have told the present owner of this lot about the zoning requirements and should have known what the code required. Barbara Crandall of 3401 Riva Ridge, appeared before the Board opposing the appeal. She stated there were many children in the subdivision and in the immediate area she counted approximately 25 children. She also stated that children riding their bikes can't see around the fence and may curve into the intersection. That would be dangerous. When Meadowlark is opened there will be even more traffic. Riva Ridge is the only way out of the sub division. She agreed that the two corner posts should be removed. The Board discussed if an option would be to move the entire side fence back 8 feet and if by doing that would the fence meet code requirements and in fact need a variance. It was also stated that it was unusual to find a lot with 3 frontage sides. Mr. Giuliano stated that by moving the entire side fence back 8 feet there would be no gain, because one of the corner posts would then still be in its present location. Bob Crandall, 3401 Riva Ridge appeared before the Board to oppose the appeal. He stated that the sight obstruction will not slow down cars coming from Meadowlark and children coming from Riva Ridge onto Meadowlark would be a potential problem. He also agreed that the removal of the 2 corner posts would be beneficial. Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 6 Boardmember Wilmarth stated that the owner was aware of the size and location of the lot and stated one possibility would be to remove 3 posts. She noted the memorandum from the traffic technician stating that the changes he recommended would be "minimum" changes and she was uneasy doing the minimum when children's safety was involved. Boardmember Lancaster agreed that a variance was necessary because of the unusual situation of 3 street frontages and by setting back the entire side by 8 feet would really only gain 6 feet. Boardmember Gustafson stated that moving the posts along Meadowlark 8 feet closer to the house would make the side yard unusable. He suggested removing 4 posts. Boardmember Garber stated he needed to put his trust in the city official's recommendation and removing the 2 corner posts seemed reasonable and sufficient. Boardmembers discussed the black tire marks on the sidewalk as being evidence that cars take the corner too fast or too close and that it was very important that an adequate sight distance be provided for cars turning from Meadowlark onto Riva Ridge because of the fact that pedestrians and bicyclists will be using the sidewalk behind the fence. There was general agreement that there was adequate sight distance for vehicular traffic. Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to approve Appeal #1981 with the restriction that the 4 corner posts be removed as shown in the slides and diagonal the fence to the remaining posts. Mr Giuilano then requested permission to address the Board again. He was uncertain whether or not the patio slab would be in the way if this were required. Mr. Lancaster then discussed the accuracy of the site plan with respect to the exact location of the posts. It was determined that the posts may not be in the exact locations shown. Mr. Lancaster then discussed an equilateral triangle, wherein the 2 sides along the street would be 25 feet, and the other leg, the diagonal, would be 35 feet. There was some discussion about which posts would then need to be removed and whether or not removing additional posts accomplished anything. Boardmember Lancaster made his motion again to approve Appeal #1981 with the restriction that the 4 corner posts be removed as shown in the slides and diagonal the fence to the remaining posts. In addition, no landscaping in the diagonal, outside the fence, higher than 36" would be allowed. Boardmember Anastasio seconded the motion. Yeas: Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Wilmarth. Nays: Garber Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 7 Appeal #1982. Lot 5, Block 1, Frey Subdivision (between 1808 & 1810 West Mountain) - approved. The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet in order to allow a new single-family dwelling in the RM zone. The lot platted with only 50 feet of lot width. A dwelling has never been constructed on the lot. Without a variance, nothing can be built. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained this was an older part of town and this lot width requirements has changed. When this area was platted the lot width was 50 feet and the code required only 40 feet. Mr. Tim Pearson, the potential buyer appeared before the board and stated he has talked with neighbors about building a single family home on the site. The neighbors he spoke with were in favor of building a single family home on the site. Boardmember Lancaster moved to approve appeal #1982. Boardmember Garber seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Lancaster, Wilmarth. The appeal passed. Appeal #1983 by Larimer County, 2405 Midpoint Drive - approved. ----- Larimer County is requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals determine that the present and proposed Larimer County Detention Facility (Jail) is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public, and therefore is exempt from the City of Fort Collins zoning requirements. The authority of the Board to make this determination is set forth by State law (CRS 31-23-301 (1)). ----- Staff comments: A staff explanation of this law will be presented at the meeting. Boardmember Lancaster excused himself from this appeal as he is employed by Larimer County. Zoning Administer, Peter Barnes explained the county detention facility is in the IL zone and is not permitted use in the zone. r-1 L-A Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 8 Paul Eckman, City attorney State statute. explained the requirements for the Mr. Wayne Lawler, facility manager appeared before the Board. When the jail was designed it was foreseen that an addition would be necessary in approximately 10 years. The facility was built in 1983 and there is a crowding problem already. The jail was built to house 152 person, but at 130 it is crowded. At the busiest times the detention facility has had 180-190 inmates. The County has hired a consulting firm and developed a steering committee to look into the expansion of the jail. The County sees a need to build an addition for minimum security that would hold 58-60 inmates. Mr. Carr Seeker, Architect Studio, presented the plan for expansion to the Board. He explained this is an addition to the master plan. There are 14.4 acres of land and there are plans for developing the remaining in the future. The main concern is the overcrowding of the facility. Construction would take approximately 1 year and will start in late summer or early fall of 1991. Boardmember Anastasio asked if the zoning was approved when the detention facility was built in 1983, why then is the County coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes explained the jail is in the IL zone and that zone does not allow a jail. In 1981 when the jail was originally built, the County did not go through this procedure to exempt them from future plans. Boardmember Anastasio stated that the Board should approve the additions as they happen, not the entire master plan. Boardmember Garber stated the County needs to present their plans to the planning commission for approval after the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Paul Eckman stated this was a matter of law. Boardmember Huddleson stated the Board needed to decide if the information presented did in fact show that the jail is reasonable and necessary for the community. It was clear by the evidence submitted, that to him it was necessary. Boardmember Garber stated he felt comfortable leaving the expansion plans up to the county and he felt the addition was necessary. Boardmember Garber moved to approve exemption from the City Zoning requirements for the immediate addition to the detention facility and the master plan because the evidence showed that this was reasonable and necessary for the community. Boardmember Wilmarth seconded the motion. Yeas: Garber, Anastasio, Huddleson, Gustafson, Wilmarth. Motion passed. rIL E Zoning Board of Appeals April 11, 1991 Page 9 Meeting was adjourned. Next meeting - May 9, 1991 - City Council Chambers. Respectfully Submitted, Chuck Huddleson, Chairman CA -- Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator CH/PB/aer-