Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/11/2021 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 FEBRUARY 11, 2021 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the January 14, 2021 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously with LaMastra abstaining.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200049 – APPROVED Address: 1050 Hobbit St Owner: RTA Hobbit, 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting where the sign will be placed and the requirements for the setback. There was a landscape plan submitted. The applicant has discussed with Forestry since the last meeting and came up with a plan on how to plant a tree as well as put the sign in. Staff is recommending that the sign only be illuminated on one sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 11, 2021 LaMastra requested an overview of what has changed since the last hearing. Beals confirmed that the design has not changed at all. Lawton asked what the main concerns were which lead this to be tabled. Beals stated that there was concern by the public and also the applicant wasn’t able to answer all questions presented by the Board. Applicant Presentation: Todd Mros from Ramsey Signs, 9160 SE 74th Ave, Portland OR 97206, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. He explained that there is nowhere else to place the sign and maintain the 75-foot setback. Forestry did confirm that there is room for the tree and the sign. Illumination will be indirect halo illumination, meaning that it will not shine out and will be less intrusive than ground lights. He showed pictures from many vantage points of the sign. He also showed where future trees will be placed based on the landscaping plan which was approved. Vice Chair LaMastra was still not clear on why the sign must be sided on the back. The applicant responded that the owner believe that their signs add to the perception of the property and feel strongly that this is a value add to their property. He stated that there are options, but the preference is for a double-sided sign. Chair Shields asked whether the sign will even be visible from the back side. The applicant stated he was not sure. Audience Participation: Katherien Dubiel, Fort Collins 80525, addressed the board and asked about the size of the lettering. She wanted to know from what distance this is readable. She also wanted to know what other signs would be present at the site (parking signs, etc) as she is concerned about sign clutter. Applicant responded that the letters are 12 inches. He does not have information on other signage but would assume it would only be signs which would be allowed in the code. He also confirmed that the ownership is RTA Hobbit LLC Irvine, CA 92612 Chair Shields asked Beals about other signage. Beals is not aware of any other signage at this time but was not sure. He imagined there might be a parking sign somewhere. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra does not think the sign will be noticeable from the single-family residences. The parking lot lights will have a bigger impact. She still does not understand why the sign must be on both sides but does not see it as an impact. She will be in support. Chair Shields asked whether the sign allowance counts both sides – Beals confirmed. Boardmember Stockover mentioned that the sign will be less visible as time goes on. He also believes the back of the sign will be a moot point. He believes signage is important for directional purposes. He will be in support. Boardmember Lawton thought the application did a good job of explaining the distance between the sign and residences. He still does not understand the reason for the rear lighting but doesn’t think it will be a limitation. He will be in support. Boardmember Shuff thinks the hardship is there as the parcel is uniquely located. It will fit in well once the other development goes into the adjacent area. He is in support. Boardmember Meyer thinks that the letters will be taller than 12 inches but will be in support. Applicant did confirm that the lettering will be 18 inches. Chair Shields thinks the sign will be low impact. The pictures were helpful and appreciated. He will be in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve ZBA200049 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical conditions unique to the property which is subject to the request as follows: The property only has 44.25 feet in length from interior lot line to interior lot line. 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. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 11, 2021 2. APPEAL ZBA210001 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the code does not restrict the number of buildings or the spacing of accessory structures, only the total square footage. Proposal is to be side-loaded. There are dual processes at play. This property is a designated historic property. There would be a separate process for demolition. Karen McWilliams, Historic preservation manager, addressed the Board and added that HP concern of the proposal to remove the garage is very unlikely to be supported by the Landmark Preservation Commission. The application is not feasible. She requests that this be tabled until March when the LPC meeting will take place. They will have further clarification after this meeting. There are several approvals which will be needed by the commission. Boardmember Shuff would want to know if this should just be tabled at this time. Chair Shields agreed. Council Havelda wanted input from the applicant before any decision is made. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jeffrey Schneider, Fort Collins District 1 80524, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. The clients did not realize that the garage was historic. They are aware of the different processes and wanted to run things concurrently (demolition permits, Historic Preservation and ZBA). They are meeting with LPC on March 17th to talk through the home altercations. He was not aware of when the demolition of the garage would be going before the LPC. Boardmember LaMastra believes that this should be heard now since the applicant is here and has all of the information. She does not believe that the additional information should stop the hearing in the context of the information that they have. The applicant agreed with this and noted they are trying to save time while working through multiple processes. Boardmember Lawton sees the value of hearing this now. It would give the petitioner freedom to work. LaMastra asked whether the overall area is still within the parameters of code. Beals confirmed. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover believes hearing this is the right thing to do. He does not feel it will hinder LPC in their hearings. This is a minimal addition and he will be in support. Boardmember Lawton asked whether the approval is tied to the size of the building or to the overall plan. Beals stated that the approval is not tied to the plan. Boardmember Shuff does not have a big issue with the addition. He feels tying the proposal to the plan is important and we should be specific in approval. Boardmember LaMastra agrees that it needs to be tied to the site plan. Boardmember McCoy is ok with a simple variance for the square footage overage and does not understand the reason to be specific. Boardmember Meyer thinks the proposal is specific to the sight plan. It is an easy request to approve. Boardmember Stockover wanted to make a motion with a condition that both structures are removed– this will give more flexibility with Landmark Preservation. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 11, 2021 Shuff believes the application should be approved and not speculate. LaMastra agrees that there should be no speculation and thinks we should approve based on the site plan. Havelda stated that the board should not weigh too heavily on what another board would decide. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210001 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and , 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 with the following findings: The visual discernment of an additional 56 sf is minimal, The proposed structure complies with required setbacks and height and The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA210002 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting sign code allows for one sign. The request is that a call box is associated with a screen with images, which then becomes a sign. This proposal will not exceed the overall allotment for square footage. Drive-thru signs are allowed to be 100% visual display. The site is developed with mature landscape. Boardmember Meyer asked whether all Starbucks in town have two signs. Beals noted that the one on N College does. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Jennifer Craft, Apex Signs 505 N Link ln#2, FTC addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. LaMastra wanted clarification on the need for two signs. The applicant explained that it helps to expedite traffic. They don’t anticipate it to be used for advertising. There is a screen saver when not being used. Lawton asked if it was motion activated and the timing mechanisms. Applicant stated that there is a motion trigger underneath. She believes that it would be off during non-business hours. Chair Shields asked if there was anything in the land use code requiring signs to be shut off during non-business hours. Beals said he was not certain. Sign code is set up to not look at the message. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Chair Shields doesn’t see an issue as there are many drive-thrus in town with two signs. Boardmember Meyer thought the plans have two signs. Beals clarified that the original request came in for three signs. The applicants were willing to remove the first sign to bring it down to two. LaMastra thinks it will help with traffic flow and will be in support. Boardmember Lawton is also in favor. Boardmember Stockover wanted clarification on the initial design. In their letter the applicant would still prefer 3 signs. How does this differentiate between dual drive-thrus. Beals clarified that there is one freestanding sign allowed for each drive-thru lane. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 11, 2021 Boardmember Meyer likes the idea of increasing efficiency and speed in the drive thru. He wanted to make sure that this does not set precedence for having multiple signs in a drive thru. Shuff stated that since they are still in the allowable allotment. Meyer asked if there needs to be a change to the sign code. Beals stated that the code is meant to prevent clutter. LaMastra doesn’t think that this is setting precedence and each variance needs to be looked at individually. She wanted clarification on why there needs to be separation of the signs. Applicant responded that this is the standard signage for Starbucks. It could be custom but would involve more cost. Boardmember Lawton believes that traffic flow was a big reason behind the planning for this. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210002 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and 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 with the following findings: The approval is only for two signs; 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. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED **The Board took a break at 10:18, resuming at 10:23** Roll call was taken and all boardmembers were present. 4. APPEAL ZBA210003 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting images of the structure and the request of the applicant to add to an existing structure in the back. The property has already gone through the LPC hearing. Karen McWilliams from Historic Preservation addressed the board. The owners previously submitted a request which was denied. The owners came back with another proposal which did meet standards. LPC commission did approve in the August 2020 meeting. Historic Preservation staff is supporting this request. Boardmember Lawton asked whether the current structure was leaning. Beals noticed the same and assumed that it would be fixed. McWilliams noted that an engineer came out and that it will be reenforced and corrected. Applicant Presentation: The applicant was unable to attend the hearing but wanted the Board to continue the hearing and agree it could be held remotely. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember LaMastra will be in support. Boardmember Meyer asked whether the existing roof is overhanging the property line. When the structure is fixed, will it push the roof over the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 11, 2021 Beals did not have the exact answer. Boardmember Shuff confirmed that it was called out and it looks like there will be about 4 inches. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210003 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and 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 with the following findings: 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 Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 5. APPEAL ZBA210004 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a request to build an accessory building and demolish the two existing accessory buildings. The accessory structure compared to a two car garage would be longer but same in width. There is a neighboring accessory building that abuts on the north side. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Rob Kennedy, 211 Wood St and Dick Anderson (architect) addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. The overall eave height should have been added to the other applications. The reason is to match the other structure. Boardmember Lawton asked whether the garage was being designed to have vehicle access from both sides. Applicant confirmed as such. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff appreciates the consolidation of buildings. He noted that this is double the allowed square footage and this seems like it might not be nominal and inconsequential. He is wondering about precedent as there are a lot of people in the area who might want to build a bigger garage. LaMastra wanted clarification on the rationale of the code to limiting the square footage vs the number of structures. Beals stated that the intent was to limit buildings looming into other properties. Chair Shields asked Beals about the maximum square footage in the zone district. Beals confirmed the footprint maximum is 600 sf. A carriage house is allowed 1000 sf of floor area. Applicant clarified that the focus of the project was for aesthetics and functionality. Boardmember Meyer believes it is nominal and inconsequential and is everyone’s best interest that there is one building vs multiple. He will be in support. Boardmember Lawton feels that it will be an improvement and would be in support Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210004 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and 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 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 11, 2021 to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: 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. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. **Boardmembers LaMastra, Shuff and Shields recused themselves from the next appeal**. Boardmember McCoy made a motion, seconded by Lawton to nominate Stockover as acting Chair. The motion was approved unanimously. 6. APPEAL ZBA210005 – APPROVED 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. . Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is relatively new development. There is already a freestanding sign. There has since been an update to the sign code which puts more of a limitation on signs. Allowable sign area is 55 sf. Proposal is for over 65 sf. Applicant Presentation: Applicants, Tony Campana, (Jessup Farms) and Randy Lerich, (Action signs) addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. Tony stated that this will be a great way to allow for better navigation. The same type of architecture and materials was used as the existing signs and believes it will be a true asset. Randy added that he was told by a previous zoning employee that the landscape feature doesn’t serve as signage. Beals stated that he was not aware of that. Boardmember Lawton asked about the lighting on the sign and whether the colors (black/red) would be used. Beals confirmed it is a digital sign and that the colors may change and that it is dimmable. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Meyer noted that this is an 80% increase of signage and does not see it as nominal. He noted that they are removing another sign and it is still over the maximum by 80%. Beals confirmed that there were 2 signs which were removed and will be replaced by the proposed sign. If the sign was designated as the primary sign, it would only be over by 5 sf. Boardmember Stockover noted that the primary sign is more artwork and not fully acting as a sign (although by code definition it is). He feels the request is appropriate and well done. Boardmember McCoy will be in approval. Boardmember Lawton thinks it is well done and does not have a problem with it. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve ZBA210005 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the general purpose for which the motion is requested is that the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 11, 2021 secondary sign in this location is very much acting like the primary sign and the primary sign is acting like an architectural element. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose equally well or better than the proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested with the following findings: 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. Yeas: Meyer, McCoy, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED.  OTHER BUSINESS - none  ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 11:28 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning