HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/10/1988ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 10, 1988
Regular Meeting — 8:30 A.M.
Minutes
The annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
November 10, 1988 at 8:30 A.M. in the council chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Wilmarth, Thede,
Lancaster and Lawton.
Boardmembers absent: Coleman, Huddleson and Nelson.
Staff present: Barnes and Goode.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of October 13, 1988, Approved as Published
The minutes of the October 13, 1988 regular meeting were unanimously
approved.
Appeal #1898. Section 29-459(1), by Jeff and Rristy Thiemann, 418 Wood
Street — Approved with conditions.
"---The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a
detached building. Specifically, the variance would allow a dog
grooming business to be conducted in an existing detached building at
the rear of the lot while the proprietors live in the house on the lot.
The property is located in the RM zone.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: Because of sanitation concerns and
the need to use disinfectants, the dwelling itself is not a suitable
place to conduct the business. This is an older property and there is
no attached garage or basement room which could be used for this
business. All other requirements of the home occupation ordinance will
be met.
--Staff comments: None"
There were no letters received, and no notices were returned.
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that this property is located in
the RM (medium —density residential) zone; home occupation businesses are
allowed. Out of the 11 requirements needed to comply with the home
occupation ordinance, only one will not be satisfied. The ordinance
stipulates that the business be conducted in the resident's dwelling. In
this case, the petitioners desire to use an existing detached building at
the rear of the lot. An alley located at the rear of the lot will provide
access and parking for this business. The Zoning Board of Appeals has
considered similar variances in the past.
14
ZBA Minutes November 10, 1988
Page 2
Jeff Thiemann told the Board that he and wife have been in contact with the
building inspection office and are aware of the various building codes that
need to be complied with. They plan to operate this business Monday
through Saturday, from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.. They will offer dog
grooming services by appointment only. There will be no overnight
kenneling. Since Rristy Thiemann is the only employee, she will be capable
of grooming a maximum of 8-10 animals daily. The petitioners feel this
northwest location is optimum for their success. The purchase of this
property may be considered if the business is successful.
Joseph A. Gavaldon addressed the Board representing his mother, who lives
at 413 N. Grant, the property directly adjacent to the rear of the property
in question. His mother is not in opposition of the variance request, but
rather has questions regarding the proposed business.
The petitioner responded to Mr. Gavaldon's inquiry regarding sanitation
concerns, and what types of chemicals that will be used for this type of
business. Mr. Thiemann said the chemicals used will consist of a
"tick —dip" and a commercial disinfectant used to clean the holding cages.
The "tick —dip" is a bathing solution used to kill ticks. It is disposed of
like common shampoo, through the city's sewer system. The disinfectant
containers will be disposed of weekly with other household trash.
Additionally, he said the sanitation concerns, which were noted above in
the statement of hardship, are primarily hair.
Mr. Gavaldon asked what the ordinance would allow if in the future the
Thiemann's wanted to expand or vacate the business. Would future tenants
be allowed to carry —on another home occupation business? Mr. Barnes
explained that the Board can place any number of conditions on this
variance, if it is approved. For example, the Board can limit the variance
to allow this particular business only, or condition any future expansion
to be reconsidered by the Board prior to expansion. If the dog grooming
business ceased, and another business were proposed, a public hearing would
be necessary and adjacent property notices would be required.
Through discussion, it was determined that offensive noise and odor are
restricted by the ordinance. If either were to become a problem the
neighbors could file a complaint and the proprietor would be issued a
violation notice. Boardmember Lancaster expressed concern for the need of
prompt clean up, of both solid waste and chemical containers. He suggested
the petitioner take responsibility for securing his trash in a manner that
is inaccessible to the neighborhood children in this residential zone.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to grant the variance with the condition
that the only business allowed is the proposed dog grooming business and
the business be limited to this structure. Boardmember Wilmarth seconded
the motion. Yeas: Wilmarth, Lancaster and Lawton. Nays: None.
Note: Boardmember Thede abstained from voting on this appeal. She arrived
after the majority of information regarding this appeal was heard.
ZBA Minutes
Page 3
November 10, 1988
Appeal #1899. Section 29-133 (5), by Melvin Eckard, 2948 Silverwood —
Approved.
"---The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the
north lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet for a proposed detached carport in
the RLP zone.
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner has a motor home for
which he desires to build a carport in order that the R.V. will have
some protection from the elements. This is the only practical location
to build the structure since the house does not sit square on the lot.
The topography of the lot is such that the yard begins to drop
approximately 10 feet in elevation directly behind where the proposed
carport will be built.
--Staff comments: Because the house does not sit square on the lot, it
would be difficult to build the carport as an attachment to the
existing garage. As an attached structure, the front of the carport
would have to be about 8 feet further back than the proposal submitted
in order to comply with the required side setback. This would be
impractical for two reasons: 1) The slope of the backyard would
probably not allow it, and 2) because of the angle at which the house
sits, it would be very difficult to maneuver the large R.V. in and out
of the carport without driving onto the adjacent lot. If the Board
considers granting this variance, perhaps conditions should be attached
to it with regards to maintenance and roof runoff."
There were no letters received, and no notices were returned.
This lot is located directly adjacent to Lake Sherwood. Mr. Barnes stated
that the rear portion of this property slopes toward the lake, causing a
dramatic topographical change. The house doesn't sit straight on the lot
because of its somewhat pie —shaped configuration. For this reason, he
feels it would be difficult to build the carport as an attachment to the
existing garage.
Mel Eckard submitted photographs of the proposed carport's location. He
feels this location is the only practical one. This side area presently
serves as an access to the back yard for lawn mowers and other maintenance
equipment. The opposite side of the house is a series of terraced
retaining walls. Previously the R.V. was parked on the street in front of
his home. A gate, across the front of the carport, will serve as a buffer
as well as protect the vehicle from theft and vandalism. The roof line and
building materials used for the proposed construction will tie—in with the
existing structure, and rain gutters will be used to route storm drainage
to the rear of the property. He intends to construct the carport in
compliance with building code requirements, such as using fire —retardant
treated building materials. Additionally, the petitioner has made all of
his neighbors aware of his plans to build the carport. He told the Board
none of the neighbors object.
Harold Miller, the neighbor adjacent to this property, spoke in favor of
the variance. He feels he would be the only neighbor directly affected by
the proposed carport addition. He told the Board he has no objection to
the variance request.
ZBA Minutes November 10, 1988
Page 4
Discussion between the boardmembers was brief. Boardmember Thede feels
the petitioner has addressed the concerns of the Board, and has the
approval of his neighbors. She made a motion to approve the variance for
the hardship being the lay —of —the —land. A second to the motion was made by
Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Wilmarth, Thede, Lancaster and Lawton. Nays:
None.
Appeal #1900. Section 29-595(a), by Steve Miner for Fort Collins Monument
Works, 824 E. Lincoln — Approved.
"---The variance would reduce the required setback for a ground sign, which
is to be located within 50 feet of a driveway, from 15 feet to 0 feet.
The proposed sign is 28 square feet and is 7 feet tall. It will
advertise the "Fort Collins Monument Works".
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property line is 60 feet from
the street, so even at a zero setback the sign will greatly exceed the
intent of the code with respect to site visibility. The driveway
serving the property directly adjacent to the east is located right
along the west lot line of this lot, so there is no place on this lot
at which the sign could be located at a distance further than 50 feet
from a driveway.
--Staff comments: This is a good example of a situation which depicts
the issue we discussed after last months meeting wherein the
right—of—way line is an arbitrary point from which to base the
requirement for setbacks of ground signs since the right—of—way line
varies dramatically all over town in regard to the distance this line
is set back from the street. The intent of the code with respect to
such setbacks is solely one of safety. The code allows a ground sign
to be at a zero setback if it is at least 50 feet from a driveway or
intersection. Since it already allows a zero setback, the
determination has already been made that the distance the sign is
setback has nothing to do with aesthetics when the type of sign
involved is a ground sign. With respect to safety, this 60 foot
setback certainly meets the intent of the code and does not create a
site obstruction. The exceptional situation then that applies to this
lot is the location of the right—of—way line. As discussed last month,
staff will probably be recommending a change to this section of the
code so that ground sign setbacks will be measured under some other
formula, probably one which deals with a fixed point such as the curb.
This would correct the arbitrary nature of this regulation."
There were no notices returned, and no letters were received.
This property will be the new location for the Fort Collins Monument
Works. Mr. Barnes explained that this lot's right—of—way line is located
60 feet behind Lincoln Avenue. The right—of—way line varies dramatically
all over town in regard to the distance this line is set back from the
street. The adjacent property's driveway to the east borders this
property. There is less than 100 feet between the two properties'
driveways; therefore, its not possible to place the sign 50 feet away from
a driveway. The sign code requires that a ground sign, which is located
ZBA Minutes November 10, 1988
Page 5
within 50 feet of a driveway, be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the
right—of—way line. The intent of the code is solely one of safety. In
this instance, no site visibility problem exits.
Steve Pink, a sign contractor; along with Steve Minor, the owners
representative, told the Board the proposed sign will be a double—faced
sign which will be externally lit. A landscape professional has designed
the "Garden of Memories", the petitioners idea to display the monuments his
business produces. The large existing pine tree located at the front of
the lot has been incorporated into the design. If the sign is setback the
required 15 feet from the right—of—way line, the tree will obstruct the
signs view, especially from vehicles traveling west.
Boardmember Lawton believes the intent of the code is met, and no current
traffic safety problem exists. He addressed the Zoning Administrator in
regard to whether or not this setback would be adequate if Lincoln Avenue
is improved in the future? Mr. Barnes said Lincoln Avenue isn't currently
included in any Master Plan. If the road is improved, it is likely that it
would be widened an additional 30 feet. Therefore, the sign would still be
setback 30 feet from Lincoln Avenue. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to
approve the variance for the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by
Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Wilmarth, Thede, Lancaster and Lawton. Nays:
None.
Appeal #1901. Section 29-595 (a), by Fred Frantz, 1319 E. Prospect
—Approved.
"--The variance would reduce the required setback for a ground sign, which
is located within 50 feet of a driveway, from 15 feet to 0 feet. The
sign is 65 square feet per face and will identify the "Fort Collins
Club Office Park".
--Petitioner's statement of hardship: The sign needs to be located at the
entrance to the project because this is the only entrance. If people
miss the entrance than there is no easy way for them to turn around, so
this location is critical in order to maintain safe and efficient
traffic movement. The property line is 25 feet from the curb, so there
is no site obstruction and the intent of the ordinance is met. If the
sign is set back the required 15 feet it would be in the parking lot
and behind the building. The property line one block west of this
location is only 5 feet behind the curb so this same sign could be put
on a lot there at the required 15 foot setback and still be 5 feet
closer to the street than this proposal, but no variance would be
required.
---Staff comments: See appeal #1900. This is a very similar situation.
The sign at a 0 setback will still be 25 feet behind the curb, a
greater setback than it would have if it were one block west even with
the 15 foot setback from property line. This is a very good example of
the arbitrary nature of using the right—of—way line to determine
setback. The proposed sign and location will not present a site
obstruction."
No letters were received, and no notices were returned.
ZBA Minutes November 10, 1988
Page 6
This is a new P.U.D. with five proposed buildings, which is presently under
construction, in the "Fort Collins Club Office Park". Vehicles will enter
the project from the one entrance off of Prospect Street. Therefore, Mr.
Barnes stated, it is essential to place the sign at this location. At this
particular location the property line is 25 feet from the curb. As
discussed earlier, the right—of—way line varies dramatically all over town.
The property line one block west of this location is only 5 feet behind the
curb. This same sign could be put on a lot there, at the required 15 foot
setback and still be 5 feet closer to the street than this proposal,
without the need for a variance. This proposed sign will be set back 25
feet from the street, and 10 feet behind the walk which is located on the
north side of this lot. In conclusion, Mr. Barnes said Prospect Street is
completely improved, no additional expansion will occur in the future.
Fred Frantz described the proposed sign. It will be a two—sided,
low—level illuminated sign. Only one sign will be used to identify all of
the tenants inside the park; each building will not be individually
identified. He explained that the overall theme of the park is one of a
subdued nature, thus the colors and overall design of the sign are
appropriately subdued also.
Through discussion the Board determined, that with respect to safety this
25 foot setback certainly meets the intent of the code and doesn't create a
site obstruction. A motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated
was made by Boardmember Lawton, and seconded by Boardmember Lancaster.
Yeas: Wilmarth, Thede, Lancaster and Lawton. Nays: None.
Appeal #1902.Section 29-404(4), by Bob Zakely, 725 E. Vine — Approved.
"--The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the
north lot line from 30 feet to 10 feet for a 16 x 51 foot modular
office building to be located in the IP zone. The build will house
three employees.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: Presently, a mobile home is
located at the exact location where the proposed building will be. The
mobile home used to be the night watchman's residence. The owner
desires to use this location because all of the utilities and taps are
there. The building will be the office location for the adjacent
outdoor storage area. The unique and peculiar situation about this
property is that the lot line is not adjacent to the street or another
lot, but rather to a 50 foot railroad right—of—way. So, the building
will be at least 60 feet from the street, far exceeding the intent of
the ordinance. The street also acts as an additional buffer. If the
railroad right—of—way was part of this lot a variance would not be
needed. The code goes on to say that if a zoning district line is
adjacent to a railroad right—of—way, the setback is not required. So
if the property line were a zoning district line this location would
meet code. If the modular were required to meet the setback distance
of 30 feet from the lot line, it would be in the driveway. This
driveway is used by large trucks and can't be moved further south
because of the adjacent building.
i
ZBA Minutes November 10, 1988
Page 7
---Staff comments: None"
No letters or notices were received.
725 East Vine is the site of the defunct sugar beet factory. It is the
petitioners desire to replace the existing, unsafe mobile home with a
modular of the same size, in the same location. Presently, the existing
mobile home is setback 10 feet from the property line. The structure is
virtually invisible from the street because of the heavy strip of shrubs
that grow on the north side of the property. Peter Barnes explained, in
the IP zone, a 30 foot side lot setback is required. The intent of the
code, in regard to setbacks, is to provide an adequate buffer between two
land uses on adjacent lots. In this instance, the 50 foot railroad
right—of—way adjacent to this property will act as a buffer. The building
will be at least 60 feet from the street, which exceeds the intent of the
ordinance.
Bob Zakely, indicated that Everitt Companies intends to develop this
property in the future, but because of current constraints on the property,
is not able to proceed. They desire to use the property to its fullest
current capabilities. The proposed modular will be used as a sales office
for a builders supply/lumber storage business. The business is a low
volume retail operation that won't increase current traffic in the area.
All of the boardmembers agreed the peculiar situation of the lot is a
legitimate hardship, and feel the intent of the code, regarding setback
requirements, will be met. Boardmember Lawton feels removing an unsafe
structure and replacing it with a useful business is a great improvement
for this area of town. A motion to approve the appeal was made by
Boardmember Thede, and seconded by Boardmember Wilmarth. Yeas: Wilmarth,
Thede, Lancaster and Lawton. Nays: None.
The meeting was adjourned.
drg
Respectfully submitted,
Frank Lancaster, Chairman
/ <� ""3O'k�
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator