The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/11/2021 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Zba February Final Agenda Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting will be held virtually The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2021 8:30 AM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Participation for this remote Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Zoning Board of Appeals via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/96306833298. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:15 a.m. on February 11, 2021. Participants should try to sign in prior to 8:30 a.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email jluther@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. The number to dial is +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128, with webinar ID: 963 0683 3298. (Continued on next page) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 11, 2021 • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200049 Address: 1050 Hobbit St Owner: Landmark Housing, LLC Petitioner: Lisa Croston Zoning District: M-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to install a monument sign 10 feet from the adjacent residential zone. The required setback is 75 feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA210001 Address: 1306 W Mountain Ave. Owner: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen Petitioner: Jeffrey Schneider Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to construct a 656 square foot accessory building exceeding the maximum allowed 600 square foot floor area by 56 square feet. The meeting will be available beginning at 8:15 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 8:30 a.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email jluther@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, the Staff Liaison needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 11, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA210002 Address: 4218 S College Ave. Owner: Francis Carrington Petitioner: Apex Signs and Graphics Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to install a second freestanding sign along a drive-thru lane. The maximum allowed is one. 4. APPEAL ZBA210003 Address: 126 S. Whitcomb St Owner/Petitioner: Tara Gaffney-Berglund Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) and 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This a request for a 74 square foot addition to an existing 216 square foot garage to encroach 4 feet +/- into the required 5 feet side setback, and the eave encroaching 2.5 feet into the required 2.5 feet setback. This garage addition would continue the setback of the existing historic building. 5. APPEAL ZBA210004 Address: 211 Wood St Owner/Petitioner: Robert Kennedy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6), 4.8(F)(2)(b)(2) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to increase the maximum floor area of an accessory building from 600 square feet to 1056 square feet (+456 square feet), and to increase the maximum eave height from 10 feet to 11 feet 4 inches. 6. APPEAL ZBA210005 Address: 1981 Jessup Dr. Owner: Jessup Farm Owners Association Petitioner: Tony Campana Zoning District: I Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum sign area of a single sided secondary sign by 28.35 square feet. This property is located in the residential sign district and considered part of a neighborhood service center which allows a secondary sign to be a maximum of 32 square feet. The proposed sign area is 60.35 square feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers except LaMastra were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton to approve the December 10, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously with Shields abstaining from the vote. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200050 Address: 603 Bayberry Circle Owner: Mark and Shawn Grafitti Petitioner: Travis Grafitti Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) & (2) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to install a 6 feet tall fence in the front yard. The allowed maximum height is 4 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the location of the house of the property in the far southeast corner. This is not typical for the neighborhood. Anything in front of the house is supposed to be a 4-foot height. They are looking to create a traditional backyard. The Greeley waterline runs through the front yard, which impedes the backyard. The fence has been placed properly from the sidewalk. They have already begun construction on the fence before the application was received. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 January 14, 2021 Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Mark Graffiti and Shawn Grafitti addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. A neighbor brought this to their attention as they were building the fence that it needed to be placed back from the sidewalk. He did not read carefully the rules regarding the fencing. They contacted the City regarding this and also got an Engineering variance. They want to be in compliance. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover remembers when this was built and agrees that this is a hardship. He will be in favor. Boardmember Lawton agrees and remembered another appeal which was approved a few months ago. This one appears to be even more than a hardship. Boardmember Shuff agrees that there is a hardship. There is still a lot of frontage and the lot is big enough. He will be in support. Boardmembers McCoy and Meyer also agree. Meyer appreciates the landscape buffer. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200050 for the following reasons:the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the common good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the land use code contained in section 1.2.2 with the following findings: The waterline easement prevented the building to be sited similar to the other properties in the PUD, The side and front yards are larger and the rear yard smaller than found on other properties in the PUD, the fence has been moved to comply with the setback from the public sidewalk. Yeas: Meyer, Lawton,Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA200051 Address: 2006 Lindsey Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Brent Ulbert Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow a pergola to remain encroaching 0 feet within the 5-foot required side-yard setback. The columns are set back 2 feet and the eaves extend to the side property line. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the pergola which is already built extends all the way to the property line. One of the City’s building inspectors alerted the Zoning Dept of this. The pergola is not attached to the front or side fences, but is attached to the house. It is completely open on 3 sides. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Brent Ulbert, 2006 Lindsey Ct, addressed the board and agreed to the remote proceedings. The reason the pergola was built was to cover a deck which was existing already. They were not aware of the setback requirements. Pergola is made of high quality materials. The adjacent neighbor which shares the fence has verbally approved of the pergola. The applicant read an approval from another neighbor (Matthew H Skinner) directly to the North. Chairperson Shields wanted confirmation that the pergola does not go over the property line. He also asked when it was built. The applicant responded that it does not extend over and was built in 2015. Boardmember Shuff asked about the distance from the fence. The applicant responded that it was 23- 24 inches. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 January 14, 2021 Audience Participation: (none). Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover thought that moving the posts on to the deck might give it a little more space, but he is okay with this. Boardmember Lawton is in support. Boardmember Shuff believes that this is inconsequential. It has been there for several years. Boardmembers McCoy, Meyer and Shields will be in approval as they believe that this is inconsequential. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA200051 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the common good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the land use code contained in section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the covering is semi-transparent, there is no fencing attachmed to the columns, and it has been there for a number of years with no neighborhood complaints Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA200052 Address: 232 Lyons St. Owner/Petitioner: Jason Jones Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for two variances to build a garage encroaching 2 feet into the 5-foot required north side-yard setback and encroaching 3 feet into the 5-foot required rear-yard setback along an alley. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the request is to build a garage in the back and will encroach into both the rear and side setbacks. There is a utility pedestal and the applicant wishes the garage door be centered to the pedestal. There is also a cement patio in place. The distance from the rear patio to the property line is 28 feet. The garage can be pushed to the rear patio and still meet the setback. Boardmember Shuff asked whether the garage door would be facing the alley. Beals responded that was his understanding. He also asked whether based on this, the setback would be 8 feet instead of 5 feet. Beals stated he would need to check on this. He clarified that the 5-foot setback does not have any requirements for garage doors. Boardmember Lawton wanted to clarify that this is a two-car garage that they could pull out on either side of the box. Beals responded that was his understanding. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jason Jones, 232 Lyons St, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. The idea is to put an attached garage with the door facing the alley. It would be a two-car garage with the utility pedestal being centered. The pedestal is owned by Century Link and they could move it, but the applicant would be responsible for cost. Applicant did not want to incur these costs. The main thing he wants to accomplish is to center the garage on the pedestal. The adjacent neighbors do not have concerns, although he does not have anything in writing. Proper drainage will be maintained. The utilities do run right on the fence line and won’t be impacted. Chair Shields asked about the eaves and how deep will they be built. The applicant noted that they will be 1 feet. It will not go over the property line. Boardmember Lawton asked about the partition. Applicant noted it was placed by previous owner. There used to be an above ground pool and it was just a divider. It does not serve any structural needs and will be removed. Audience Participation: Loretta Capra, 231 N McKinley, addressed the board and whether it would be an issue if anyone across the alley wanted to build a garage. The applicant does not see that this would be an issue. The garage would be a few feet inside the fence line. It might give additional space. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 January 14, 2021 Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff is concerned about the amount of space and maneuvering. He thinks it is too tight. He sees a lot of other people building garages in similar lots and placing the door on the side. This might solve the issue with the pedestal. He doesn’t understand the hardship. Boardmember Stockover thinks the utility box is problematic. He thinks it might cause accidents. He agrees with Shuff about the maneuvering. Shields noted it would be the owner’s responsibility if he damages the utility pedestal. Meyer does not see the hardship. He likes the suggestion of the side garage. Boardmember Lawton said that another option might be to move the garage further south to avoid variances. He thinks there are other viable options. Boardmember McCoy thinks most of the variance is due to the pedestal. He would not be in support. Chair Shields asked the applicant about moving the door to the south side. Applicant stated that the south side has landscaping which would need to be torn out. A shed would also need to be moved. He didn’t like that the side door would limit to driving only one direction. Stockover doesn’t have a problem with the garage being pushed to the fence. When the pedestal is taken out of the equation, he still would like it pushed to the side. The owner is the only one to suffer consequences of getting in/out. He thinks the best option is to move the pedestal and move it back 5 feet and move it as close to the fence as possible. He can only support the side yard setback. Chair Shields is also in support of the side yard setback and not in support of the rear yard setback. Stockover asked Beals whether they can approve with the condition of moving the pedestal. Applicant said that it would cost $5,000 to move the pedestal. Lawton asked that if the box is moved, then what is the need for the variance. Stockover proposed that the appeal be tabled and that the applicant requests for the pedestal to be vaulted (move it underground) by the utility company. Applicant would be willing to look into this. Lawton thinks that this will be an even bigger cost. Shuff still does not see the hardship or justification. Shields believes that a re-design would be the best idea. The applicant agreed to table the appeal to come up with better solutions. Stockover suggested a motion to deny the rear yard setback and approve the side yard setback. He believes that the Utility company will eventually move it if it gets clipped enough times. . Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200052 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good, there are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary conditions unique to the property which is subject to the request for the following: The utility pedestal makes it impractical for the garage to be set back 5 feet from the side yard. Recommend denial of the rear yard setback with the finding that the patio could be downsized and the garage could be moved to meet the setback. Insufficient evidence was provided to establishing a unique hardship to the property for this portion of the request. Approval of side yard setback and denial of rear yard setback. Yeas: Lawton, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: Shuff, Meyer THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED ** a 5 minute break was taken at 10:05. The meeting resumed at 10:10 and a roll call was taken. All boardmembers from the previous appeals were present. 4. APPEAL ZBA200053 Address: 3038 S College Ave. Owner: GPM RE LLC Petitioner: Michael Skinner Zoning District: C-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Table (E); 3.8.7.2(A)(1) Table (A) Project Description: This is a request for 3 variances to the sign code:(1) Exceed the maximum percentage of 30% allowed per canopy face. 100% per side is being requested; (2) Exceed the one sign per canopy face. Requesting that 3 of the 4 sides (North, West, South) have 2 signs per face; (3) Exceed the overall allowed sign area of the site by 557 square feet. The maximum sign area allowed for this site is 275 square feet. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 January 14, 2021 Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a gas station that has access from College Ave and Swallow Ave. The signage on the pumps counts toward the overall signage allowance. The work was started before proper permits were obtained. Sign allowance is based on frontage to the public right of way. There are other gas stations which do meet the standards of canopies. The canopies are limited on their signage and therefore meet the standards. The intent is to blend in with the site and not be a gigantic billboard. Boardmember Stockover asked whether the sign with the gas price will be changed. Beals confirmed that it would. Beals also confirmed that color counts as part of the sign allowance. Boardmember Lawton wanted clarification on why the project began before receiving approval. Beals stated that the applicant could clarify. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Michael Skinner, Imaging Contractors, addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal heard remotely. His company is based in Houston but came out to survey. They used google and noticed multiple stations that had full signage. 1503 E Mulberry St and 1603 Prospect were full image projects, so they bid their project as such. They understand that they are out of compliance and would like to come into compliance. They are willing to discontinue the LEDs. There are options to address the corporate colors but wants to maintain branding. The free-standing sign contractor wants to apply for a permit. The request is for the Valero image and an LED pricer. Shields wanted to know if the free-standing sign is included and if there are images. Applicant noted that he could produce an image. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover is very familiar with this property and owns a business within two blocks. He cited several businesses that have large branding and does not see a problem with this. He believes it is in character with the neighborhood. He will be in support. Chair Shields asked about the LED at the top. Beals confirmed that it will be removed. Boardmember Shuff asked if the existing building with the red roof had the branded colors, would that play into the signage? Beals stated that it has to do with the marketing colors which is in the newer sign code definition and regulations. Boardmember McCoy asked if they put up colors other than their brand, would it be included as a sign. Beals said it would not. Havelda read the land use code pertinent to the sign code regarding colors. Boardmember Lawton thinks that the City is strict about the rules along College Ave. He does not think that the rules should be deviated from. Chair Shields does not have a problem with the colors. He struggles with all of the other businesses which are in compliance. Boardmember Meyer has always been torn about the colors being included in the allowance. He doesn’t see why there should be an exception for this gas station. He noted that the applicant stated he wants to work within the sign code. Stockover asked if they removed the hash marks and the two blue bands, would it be in compliance? Beals stated that it sounded right but doesn’t have the exact measurements. Stockover still believes that it is in alignment with the neighborhood. Shields wanted to re-iterate that the applicant wants to come into compliance. He wants to leave it at that. He is worried about precedent set if it is approved. Shuff agreed with this. *Boardmember McCoy dropped off of the call at 10:53 and was not part of the discussion past this point. The board resumed discussion at 10:57 and there was a roll call. The applicant addressed the board again, stating that this is a common occurrence in Fort Collins to have signage like this for a gas station. He believed that it would be a disadvantage for the business to remove the corporate colors from the canopy. Stockover agreed with the applicant. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 January 14, 2021 *Mcoy rejoined the meeting but abstained from further discussion and from the vote on this appeal. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to deny ZBA200053 for the following reasons: the increase in signage can be detrimental to the public good, the doubling of the allowed signage is not nominal and the property is located on a street corner and is visible from the public right of way from multiple viewpoints, Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shuff, and Shields. Nays: Stockover THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 5. APPEAL ZBA200054 Address: 500 Albion Wy Owner/Petitioner: Talia Fox Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 80 square feet for an addition to the primary structure. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting where the proposed addition would be. The structure has a one car garage and the applicant is operating a hair salon. Lawton wanted to confirm the overall size of the addition. Beals confirmed that the overall structure is 180 square feet, with 80 square feet out of compliance. Beals clarified that floor area is calculated differently based on the zone. In the R-L district this does not include the basement or garage and is from outside wall to outside wall. Applicant Presentation: Applicant,Talia Fox, 500 Albion Wy, addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal held remotely. The addition will be a little under 80 square feet. She is using the space as a sunroom to grow plants. There is a sizable lot in the back. Audience Participation: (none). Board Discussion: Boardmember Meyer thinks this is nominal and inconsequential. He will be in support Boardmember Lawton believes it is a good use of space. Boardmember Shuff agrees. Boardmember Stockover made a motion seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200054 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the common good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the land use code contained in section 1.2.2 with the following findings The addition will meet the required setbacks, the visual perception of an additional 80 sf is minimal, the addition is in the rear of the building and will not be visible from the street Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 January 14, 2021 Beals opened up discussion to the Board regarding new nominations for Chair/Vice Chair. McCoy made a motion seconded by Shuff to nominate LaMastra as Vice Chair. The motion was approved unanimously. Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to nominate Shields as Chair. The motion was approved unanimously. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:23 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200049 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1050 Hobbit St. Owner: Landmark Housing, LLC Petitioner: Lisa Croston Zoning District: M-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to install a monument sign 10 feet from the adjacent residential zone. The required setback is 75 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This variance request was first heard during the December 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. A motion to table this item to the February 2021 meeting was approved. This property was annexed into the City in 1969 as part of the Spring Creek Third Annexation. In March of 2020, this site was approved for a multi-family development project know as Landmark Apartments and is currently under construction. This development fronts two public streets: E Prospect Ave and Hobbit Street. The vehicle access point is from Hobbit Street and access from Prospect Road is limited to emergency only. The curve length of frontage of the property along Hobbit Street is 44.25 feet. The property to the south is vacant, however, a development application has been submitted and is being reviewed for this property. This project will include multi-family buildings and two-family buildings. The applicant has provided additional information in regards to the tree location in relationship to the sign. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval with the condition that only the sign cabinet facing towards Hobbit Street be illuminated, and the tree shown in the approved landscape plan is still planted in the landscape area shared by the sign and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The property only has 44.25 feet in length from interior lot line to interior lot line. • The illuminated sign face is mostly parallel to the public right-of-way. • The height of the sign is 5 feet. • The approved landscaping will reduce visual impact of the sign to the east. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200049. To whom it may concern, The Fort Collins Design Overlay stipulates that our main entrance sign must be located further than 75’ from adjacent residential zoned properties even with a multi-family residential property. Due to the unique geography of our property this is impossible to meet. We are asking that we be allowed to place our sign within the 75’ buffer so that we have reasonable representation and can be clearly distinguished from the neighboring Landmark Apartments at our main entrance on Hobbit Street. We have gone through the concerns brought up at the last hearing and made some changes and addressed the other concerns. - We have been in contact with the Forester and we are including the Burr Oak in the indicated location as discussed with Molly in Forestry and approved. - Concern about the property being a part of Landmark (neighboring property): This is a separate property and I have sent screen shots of the Larimer County Parcel Information to prove this. - Sign size and height: The sign meets the sign code for multi-family signage in the City; we feel this is an appropriate sign for this property’s identification as well. Lighting is halo and subtle and will be much less obtrusive than even ground lights. - Placing the sign at the W. Prospect Road entrance: That is not an entrance and is only to be used as an emergency exit or for large moving trucks. Thank you, Todd Mros Ramsay Signs J%TrzvrPvcZv<vc8*r<vT<FP cv<kk B'7)' L@ 9R @<9Q&RDMR R ENR RE&=AI/PR 7B1->5$R RD2.:R*"'R"!0:'HR RF?R+((JR ROR R D@0-424-)F4=;Dm;8%R#)R034K608%#R6;8K6%8GRC0,8Rz&Uc[vG=CcvM1JMM}cv=llH>DdwND>Hi{D>Hi{ws{wsNwHN =lttcvtH{wHe{w!}=cv>mmdKN{wNH{m{"=ll[=}^cG:+&.HmN>~__>HmeH!m>\OmOO_dO&_eODm{Hi{ewm{wV>HO{VmOOfwHmKN+&6HmN>DNNmNKD{KN{mewN{wW>HN!s>mmOmOO_eR_eODm{Hi{dwm{wV>HO{Vm >m{>~~qNmm{dwm{V>HN {.wKV>HN{V>HmfH fwHmKO+&6HmO>DOOmOKD{KO{mewO{wV>HO!clltcx=czv:_fNmNKe_fwH>DewN NNwd\_H{wHN~{wwS~>\N!Pkkz=CvJPG=CcxP9>msews~>dwNK{wD{`dKNdw>mmV{w{D>Hi"w{dmmsfw@d{wwKOH>DdwO w{K{wme\_dw\{w>DC=Gj[zvJGM=xJC=M:>mn>msdws~>dwNK{DmNwKe_DemKew\!fwHmKO~dwd~O H{m{DK xtM=l=JJM:,&2_eHi>msewsVm_s{wNK$cv=llc[v;dw\mOOOm~d~OKdOHqDdOKewH{wHOOV{{ew\~OH{KO! -( 4u?|?oQy]a|Yggy?Q?3(hy|Q?ppbQg]ab|y3u??pp|QL 0/XQQ?pp|QL E?QyQQL|EQApQ?5(|Xh]ypQy]b#?ppgyLgQIb?p|ph]bhy] h]y|I|upguQyEgpLgy]I|p|?yLXhyhbQ Bm*OOmOPdLUYcmMLNXmU]d^mOaLiU]RmQ^bm]Pjdm_SLcPmm9EmBm/fPmd^mN^OPmbPhUcPmd^mm^hPaLZYmSPVRSdmL]Omc`mQ^^eLRPmLdmm^amg]OPb mBPNPUhPOmMgVZOV]RmN^Z^bcmL]OmNTL]RPOmcUR]mN^Z^acmcPPmN^OPmbP`fWaP\P]dc mm9EmB m*OOm]Om^_dV^] m+m9EmB!m.SL]RPmcUlPmN^]QURgaLdV^]mcYURSdZkmB+"m*OOmOUaPNdU^]LZmd^mcN^_Pmm9EmBm.TL]RPmV]cdLZZm^]mOVbPNdV^]LYmcUR]mm9EmB7?%m.S]L]RPmd^m^hPbLZZmmmYP]RdSmm9EmB[m#m*OOmLYZmc_PNcmd^mcPZPNdPOm^_dU^]mm9Em .951<G$m ))&)')#$&!)) ) $ %(%!%# *..>I<Gm1K1.IG5J1%mG>//m:B>Em/1E63<1B&m9PcZUPmEfZZUhL]m/*G1'mm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m*..>I<Gm1K1.IG5J1m.951<Hm9*</9>B/m/1E63<m<I:,1B%m C8>,m>B/1Bm<I:,1BmWĂŐĞϭŽĨϮ :c)EEcEFZBKOYcCBDNcKSZTcEWB_KSHcGTXcSF`ZcUIBYFcc4<c:c-\FcZTcDTEFcXF^KYFcZTccT^FWBPOcIFLHIZcBSEcYVcGTT[BHFcBZccTWc]SEFX c:FDFK^FEcC]LPELSHcDTPTXYcBSEcDJBSHFEcYKHScDTPTWYcYFFcDTEFcXFV\MWFRFSZY cc4<c: c)EEcSEcTUZLTS c*c4<c:!c,IBSHFcYKbFcDTSGKH]WBZLTScYOKHIZPac:*"c)EEcEKWFDZKTSBPcZTcYDTUFcc4<c:c,JBSHFcLSYZBPPcTScELXFDZLTSBOcYKHScc4<c:28#c,ISBSHFcZTcT^FXBPPcccOFSHZIcc4<c:Qc$c)EEcBOPcYUFDYcZTcYFPFDZFEcTUZKTScc4<c ,40.6=%c ))&)')#$&!)) ) $ %(%!%# ),,7?6=c.A.,?=0@.#c=7--c5:7<c-.<1/6.:&c4FYPKFc<\PPK^BSc-)=.'cc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c),,7?6=c.A.,?=0@.c,40.6>c4)6-47:-c-.<1/6c6?5+.:#c ;37+c7:-.:c6?5+.:cWĂŐĞϮŽĨϮ Not to scaleExpanded on pg.2New Sign LocationSite Plan - The Social Fort Collins:1050 Hobbit St, Ft Collins,CO 805262101/13/21Chris SlovickSite PlanSocial Ft Collins1050 Hobbit StFort Collins, CO80526 Site Plan - The Social Fort Collins: 1050 Hobbit St, Ft Collins,CO 80526Not to scaleVisual overlayNew Sign LocationScale: = New SignProperty line1” = 20’To ba c k Of Sidew al k *BURR OAKTREE2”DIA.*Landscaping Spec: BURR OAK TREE - 2” Dia.2201/13/21Chris SlovickSite PlanSocial Ft Collins1050 Hobbit StFort Collins, CO80526 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1306 W Mountain Ave. Owner: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen Petitioner: Jeffrey Schneider Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(6) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to construct a 656 square foot accessory building exceeding the maximum allowed 600 square foot floor area by 56 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed and platted into the City in 1910 as part of the Swett’s Addition. The primary structure was built in 1922. It is unclear the number of updates that have occurred over time. The Land Use Code allows for accessory building to be built on residential property. These types of structures are required to not exceed 600sf of floor area and still meet building setbacks and floor area maximums for the lot. There are no restrictions on the number of accessory structures or separation requirements. The proposed design removes two existing building and replaces it with one new building. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The visual discernment of an additional 56 sf is minimal. • The proposed structure complies with required setbacks and height • The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210001. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons : (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not lim ited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirem ents would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-im posed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 Site Benchmark:Project Benchmark:GENERAL NOTES:Project Description:IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT CERTIFICATE: Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4218 S College Ave. Owner: Francis Carrington Petitioner: Apex Signs and Graphics Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to install a second freestanding sign along a drive-thru lane. The maximum allowed is one. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1979. Later in 1989 a development plan was approved for the surrounding shopping center and a drive-thru restaurant on the site. In recent past this location was used for a fast-food restaurant. A minor amendment was approved in 2020 to update the site for a new tenant still a fast-food use. The initial design included three separate free standing signs. The applicant has eliminated one of these three and is requesting variance to allow only 2. The two remaining signs include a static message cabinet and electronic message board. The Land Use Code allows for 1 freestanding sign per drive-thru lane. These signs do not count towards the allowable sign area for the property. However, they are not to exceed 30sf per sign face. Additionally, these types of signs for a drive-thru are allowed to be 100% electronic. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The total square footage for both free standing signs is 32sf • This site has been developed for many years and the landscaping is mature between the public right of way and the drive-thru lane. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210002. 1/10/2021 Zoning Board of Appeals 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Starbuck’s Drive Thru Components Board of Appeals, On behalf of Starbucks, I would like to submit a request for allowance for the proposed drive thru ordering components. The proposed submittal consists of a pre-menu board, Digital Order Screen (DOS) and menu board. The proposed drive thru components are a standard package at Starbucks throughout Colorado and the United States. All three components together help aide in the expediency of customer ordering, increased sales (resulting in increased tax dollars) and increase “turn over” times through the Drive-Thru lanes. Eliminating any of these components could have a negative impact on the performance of business these items provide. Zoning has expressed only one component is allowed at the proposed location and would allow two if the “ordering box” was reduced to 2sf or less, exempting it. Although Starbucks would prefer all three, they would be willing to concede the pre-menu board in favor of the Digital Order Screen (DOS). The DOS is a one-piece item that has the “order speaker” and screen built together to make it a standardized unit. Customizing the DOS to reduce below 2sf isn’t feasible from a cost or visual aid point of view. The DOS is a visual aid that displays what the customer has ordered and the associated costs for the order - line item by line item, that’s it. The DOS is not used to advertise or display “signage”. Although somewhat visible from College, there are many sizeable and established trees in front of this drive thru lane that would block the visibility of the DOS to a certain degree. This “TV” like screen also has a predominately black background with a readable copy meant to be read a few feet away, therefore not a distraction and unsafe to the drivers along that corridor. For the reasons above, Starbucks appreciates your time and acceptance to all three components or the combination of the DOS and menu board. Regards, Nate Zimmerman - Owner Apex Signs & Graphics Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 126 S. Whitcomb St Owner/Petitioner: Tara Gaffney-Berglund Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) and 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: This a request for a 74 square foot addition to an existing 216 square foot garage to encroach 4 feet +/- into the required 5 feet side setback, and the eave encroaching 2.5 feet into the required 2.5 feet setback. This garage addition would continue the setback of the existing historic building. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was part of the original town plat dated 1873. The primary building was later constructed in 1893. The accessory building (garage) was built later in 1932. The City determined that the accessory structure to be considered historic and protected under the Municipal Code. The City denied a request to demolish the exiting building. This decision was appealed by the applicant to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). The LPC upheld City staff decision to deny the demolition permit. The LPC recommended the applicant to pursue a variance request for an addition making the structure more suitable for the needs of the current owner. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • There is little visibility of the addition from the public right of way • The existing structure has remained in place since 1932. • The addition matches the setback/encroachments of the existing structure. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210003 Tara Gaffney 126 S. Whitcomb St Fort Collins, CO 80521 City of Fort Collins Zoning Department 218 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO January 11, 2021 Statement Regarding 5’ Setback Variance Request for 126 S. Whitcomb St 80521 Please consider granting a variance for the 5’ setback requirement on a garage addition for 126 S. Whitcomb St for the following reasons: Hardship – the property in question has no alley access to add garage space. I have already been denied a request by the Landmark Commission to remove the existing garage, therefore the option to increase garage space is limited to lengthening the existing structure. Nominal, inconsequential – the addition simply adds six feet to the length of the existing garage, with the width remaining the same. The existing garage is already less than one foot from the property line, so the addition is inconsequential to the property and to the impact on the bordering property. Thank you, Tara Gaffney Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services January 22, 2021 Noah Beals Interim Development Review Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins Mr. Beals: Based on the materials submitted by Ms. Tara Gaffney, owner of 126 S. Whitcomb Street, and the decision regarding this property by the Landmark Preservation Commission on December 16, 2020, we are offering this letter of support for her variance request to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The property at 126 S. Whitcomb is a contributing historic property to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District, designated by City Council in 2013. On August 19, 2020, Ms. Gaffney requested a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the City to demolish the existing c.1932 garage. While the 2013 Landmark nomination form for the district did not clarify the historic status of accessory structures, in general, secondary structures built during a district’s period of significance are considered historic as well and protected under Municipal Code. Based on that finding, and the findings of a City-funded engineer’s report that outlined a stabilization and repair plan for the structure, staff denied the request on August 25, 2020. Ms Gaffney appealed the decision to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), which first heard the item at their October 21 regular meeting. At the meeting, the LPC voted to continue the item until December based on the lack of clarity in the original 2013 nomination form. In the intervening period, staff engaged an independent historian to survey all accessory features in the district to confirm which were historic and which were not based on the significance of the district as designated by Council. Regarding the 126 S. Whitcomb Street garage, the report concluded that the property was historic. Primarily based on that finding, the LPC voted to deny a COA to the applicant. In discussion after the motion was passed, the LPC acknowledged the Land Use Code constraints considering the historic garage’s location but recommended pursuing a variance for that option since it would be the least intrusive to the historic property, and most consistent with the City’s adopted standards for City Landmarks, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The materials submitted to your office on January 8, 2021 for a variance request to the setback requirement are consistent with the discussion by the LPC on December 16, with the engineer’s report, and are consistent with the Standards. For that reason, we are offering our support for the request for a variance. If you have questions, or need more information, please feel free to contact me. I will also plan on attending the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at which this is discussed to provide information regarding historic preservation requirements related to this proposed project. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Historic Preservation Planner jbertolini@fcgov.com. Enc. May 27, 2020, Engineer’s Report on Garage at 126 S. Whitcomb (funded by City Design Assistance Program). Existing garage is 216 Sq Ft 12’4”W x 18’4”L x 12’H The addition adds 6' to the length (74 Sq Ft) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 211 Wood St Owner/Petitioner: Robert Kennedy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6), 4.8(F)(2)(b)(2) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to increase the maximum floor area of an accessory building from 600 square feet to 1056 square feet (+456 square feet), and to increase the maximum eave height from 10 feet to 11 feet 4 inches COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed and platted into the City as part of the Capital Hill Addition. The primary building was built in 1901. It is unclear the number of alterations that occurred since then. The Land Use Code allows for accessory building to be built on residential property. These types of structures are required to not exceed 600sf of floor area and still meet building setbacks and floor area maximums for the lot. There are no restrictions on the number of accessory structures or separation requirements. The proposed design removes two existing structures and replaces it with one new accessory structure. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The width as seen from the public right of way (both the street and alley) is the same size as a two- car garage. • The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot. • The eave is lower than 13ft in height, which is permissible for accessory structures with habitable space. • The proposed structure meets the required setbacks including solar setbacks. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210004. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 211 Wood Street Robert Kennedy Self 80521 211 Wood Street Robert Kennedy (970) 692-1663 robjk67@gmail.com Capitol Hill My reason for requesting a variance is to meet the “equally well or better than” proposal requirement. I am permitted to develop 1,433 square feet of space on my property; however, per the city code, I am only authorized to build two individual 600 square foot buildings. I am requesting a variance to build a single building of 1,056 square feet because I feel this exceeds the intent of the city code by being more aesthetic with less square footage and will match the existing architecture of the original home We will match the roof pitch of the house at 9 in 12 1/10/21 Robert Kennedy 2. Equal to or better than 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification Written Statement My intent for requesting a variance is to replace my existing garage because it needs to be updated and is not large enough to fit my standard sized four-wheel drive pickup inside. Additionally, my current garage does not meet the current city code for setback requirements. In my opinion, it will be more cost effective to remove the current garage/shed on my property and start fresh with a new building that upon completion will appear like it was designed and built simultaneously with my home. I am permitted to develop an additional 1,433 square feet of space on my property; however, per the city code, I am only authorized to build two individual 600 square foot buildings. I am requesting a variance to build a single building of 1,056 square feet. I feel that a single building that will be designed to match the existing architecture of my house with a reasonable square footage design will be more aesthetic and will exceed the “equally well or better than” proposal requirement. We will match the roof pitch of the house at 9 in 12 pitch and will meet all current setback requirements. The existing garage and shed will be removed from the property. I also have a second request for a variance regarding the Land Use Code standard in a “nominal, inconsequential way.” The city code allows for a 10 foot wall height that I would like to extend to 11 feet 4 inches in order to accommodate a 10 foot high garage door which will allow access of a standard 4-wheel drive truck with a rack if needed. Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1981 Jessup Dr. Owner: Jessup Farm Owners Association Petitioner: Tony Campana Zoning District: I Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum sign area of a single sided secondary sign by 28.35 square feet. This property is located in the residential sign district and considered part of a neighborhood service center which allows a secondary sign to be a maximum of 32 square feet. The proposed sign area is 60.35 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1997. A development plan was approved in 2012. The approval included multiple buildings to be used for retail, restaurant, farmer’s market. This neighborhood center was designed to serve the residential uses directly south also included in the initial approval. An existing sign was built with the original tenant of the building at the corner of Timberline and Blackbird drive. The request is to replace this existing sign with a new freestanding sign that includes a electronic message center. The Land Use Code allows the development two free-standing signs a primary and secondary. There is a freestanding sign incorporated into the landscape wall north of the original farm house. This request is for another freestanding sign. The maximum square footage for a secondary sign face 32 sf. The maximum square footage for a primary sign in a neighborhood service center is 55 sf. Additionally, a sign 60sf in size is required to setback 8.5ft from the property line. The proposed is setback 10ft. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The proposed sign is 5.35sf over the allowed primary sign. • The existing freestanding sign is mostly transparent as it does incorporate a cabinet or background. • The proposed sign is setback is 10ft from the property line The Land Use Code allows for accessory building to be built on residential property. These types of structures are required to not exceed 600sf of floor area and still meet building setbacks and floor area maximums for the lot. There are no restrictions on the number of accessory structures or separation requirements. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210005. Jessup Farm Variance Request Reasoning: Existing Freestanding Permanent Signs are in need of improvement for business tenants of “Jessup Farm.” There are currently two signs on the property along Timberline. We propose removing one sign completely and are asking the city for an additional 28.35 Sq. Ft of sign allowance for this new secondary sign to include a code-conforming Electronic Message Center. This additional sign allowance is necessary for the efficient operations of the widely varied businesses that call Jessup Farm home. Thanks! Kevin proposed secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesScale: 1" = 1'-0"60.35 Sq Ft total32 Sq Ft Allowed28.35 Sq Ft Requested VarianceGRADESIDE VIEWMONUMENT SIGN - South Side (front)Variance Request Reasoning:Existing Freestanding Permanent Signs are in need of improvement for business tenants of “Jessup Farm.” There are currently two signs on the property along Timberline. We propose removing one sign completely and are asking the city for an additional 28.35 Sq. Ft of sign allowance for this new secondary sign to include a code-conforming Electronic Message Center. This additional sign allowance is necessary for the efficientoperations of the widely varied businesses that call Jessup Farm home. 30" Deep Concrete FoundationStone 24" deepDirect BurialStone 24" deepDirect Burial8'-5 3/4"EMC & Letters turn off by 11pmEMC & Letters not to exceed 600 nitsof luminance. EMC is dimmable.2'-0"1'-7 3/4"4'-3 1/2"14'-5 3/4"Waterjet-Cut Corten SteelFabricated Top & Sides5'-11"Push Through White Acrylic LettersInternally Illuminated w/ 3000k LEDS77.75"(w) x 31.375" (h)Electronic Message Center (EMC)Full Color 36.4 Sq Ft23.83 Sq Ft proposed secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesScale: 1" = 1'-0"GRADESIDE VIEWMONUMENT SIGN - North Side (back)30" Deep Concrete FoundationStone 24" deepDirect BurialStone 24" deepDirect Burial8'-5 3/4"2'-0"1'-7 3/4"4'-3 1/2"14'-5 3/4"Waterjet-Cut Corten SteelFabricated Top & Sides5'-11" proposed secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesPROPOSED LOCATION OF NEW MONUMENT SIGNProposed Signage- Placed exactly where an old sign used to be located- Clear sight triangle for motorists- Visible & legible from major and atrial roadways, day and night- Enhances place making of the Farm and adjacent residential development- Assists in identifying the vehicle entrance on Blackbird Dr.- Built using same materials used throughout Jessup Farm- Electronic Message Center: - Allows for multiple businesses to be identified with minimum space - Compliments the flexibility and diversity of the Farm - Can be used to promote events, sales and seasonal identity - Meets city requirements (3.8.7(I) Illumination and 3.8.7(J) Message Centers proposed secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesNIGHT VIEW OF PROPOSED SIGNNIGHT VIEW OF PROPOSED SIGNLetters Light Up on Faces and ReturnsEMC & Letters turn off by 11pmEMC & Letters not to exceed 600 nits of luminanceEMC is dimmableEMC meets all city code proposed secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes32'27'10'20'SITE LOCATION PLANSHOWING SETBACKSETBACK FROM RIGHT OF WAYSETBACK FROMPROPERTY LINEProposed New Monument SignEXISTING SIGNPROPOSED TO BE REMOVED existing secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesEXISTING MONUMENT SIGNPROPOSED TO BE REMOVED COMPLETELY existing primary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesExisting Primary Signage- Does not identify any businesses- Not legible from road- Not near vehicle entrances- Modifications to improve legibility here would only detract from the overall appeal of the property- Ultimately additional secondary signage is necessary for the operations of the shopping center and it's tenants. proposed secondary signJessup Farm 27826 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesSITE LOCATION PLANSHOWING SETBACK200' Ø(100' radius)Location of signSign is 100' from closest residentialproperty lineper 3.8.7(J)(2)(b)