Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 01/12/2023 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 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 12, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Commission members Shuff, Lawton, Coffman, San Filippo, and McCoy were present; commission member Vogel was absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (December 8, 2022 Minutes) Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the December 8, 2022, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220031 Address: 4624 S Mason St. Owner: GKT Arbor Plaza LLC Petitioner: Collins Corbett, Nat’l Acct. Mgr, Anchor Signs/Jim Donati, Project Mgr. Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(A) Table A Project Description: This is a request for the total sign allotted to the site to exceed by 42.55 square feet. The total sign area allotted to the site, based on building frontage, is 170 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located south of Harmony Rd, west of S College Ave. The building was formerly occupied by Fazoli’s and is now being prepared by a new tenant. They would like to increase the sign allowance to the site. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Minutes – January 12, 2023 When presenting an aerial view of the property, Beals called attention to S Mason St in the area, which cuts through the large retail development between Harmony and College; the subject property is located between this stretch of Mason and College Ave, but does not have frontage along S Mason St. The property does have frontage along S College Ave. This is pointed out because sign allowance calculations are based on frontage for a give property. The request is for the installation of new signs on the north, east and south sides of the building, along with a monument ground sign re-facing along S College. There is also a plan for a new menu board, but under our sign code, menu boards do not count towards the overall sign allowance for the property. The proposed signage includes a large “Krispy Kreme”-branded sign on the north, along with a smaller sign over the door. On the east and south sides would be additional “Krispy Kreme”-branded signs. All signs are illuminated; one sign would be illuminated only when hot donuts are being made/sold. The hot donuts sign element is also included on the bottom portion of the proposed monument ground. sign. The existing ground sign will not be modified in shape or location but will instead be re-faced. Beals commented that in general, there is not one sign that is considered a “tipping point” for what is exceeding allowable area; when presented together, the total sign area is over the allowable maximum based on calculated frontage. Beals presented additional images of the building, noting that the previous tenant had signs in the same approximate locations as those being proposed. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if this monument sign was the same as was considered in a previous application, which was determined to need modification? Beals clarified that this ground sign is different, and is probably now what would be considered a non-conforming ground sign, because it has one individual tenant listed. Now, if multiple tenants share a drive aisle, they must share a ground sign as well. If a non-conforming ground sign is taken down, any new signs must conform. In this instance, the non-conforming sign structure is being kept, so it can simply be re-faced. Commission member Coffman asked Beals if the previous tenant was within their allowable sign area; Beals responded that the previous tenant’s signs were within/right below their maximum allowable sign area. For comparison and reference, Beals looked up the sign area for the property to the south (Les Schwab Tires), which does have frontage along Mason St. They are currently within 30sq ft of their allowable maximum sign area. Chair Shuff restated for clarification that the 25% increase requested is not tied to any individual sign, but is calculated based on the total square footage of the requested signs. Beals confirmed, noting that if the request were denied, the applicant would need to decide whether they were going to drop a single sign, reduce all signs by a percentage, reduce one sign, etc. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jim Hirni, 866 Island Park Dr, Daniel Island SC, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hirni commented that, as someone from the South, he recognized that the Krispy Kreme brand is something of a regional icon. The “hot light” that comes on when the product is fresh can be a “game changer” for communities, drawing large amounts of traffic and excitement. The nearest Krispy Kreme currently is in Thornton, Colorado. Hirni commented that as the national sign rep for Krispy Kreme, he has working with numerous municipalities across the country, and the staff within City of Fort Collins have been some of the easiest and friendliest to worth with! Hirni described the new Krispy Kreme signage technology as being completely LED-based, as opposed to older signs that were largely neon. The applicant’s hope is to present a new, beautiful store to the community. The hardship reference in the request is one of safety, rather than marketing. They would like to create effective sight lines from all traffic lanes, and fit naturally within the surrounding retail environment. Commission member San Filippo asked Hirni how often the “hot light” sign would be illuminated, and if the illumination is flashing or constant? Hirni responded the illumination is constant when on, and the light typically illuminates twice a day, from approximately 5am-10am and again in the Land Use Review Commission Page 3 Minutes – January 12, 2023 afternoon/evening; specific times vary by store. Hirni again emphasized that these “hot light” sign is completely LED-based and does not use neon tubing. Beals added that code does not allow flashing signs. Vice-Chari Lawton asked what times the signs generally would be illuminated during the day? Hirni stated the store would comply with whatever the local codes require. Beals responded that current code requires that illuminated signs be turned off at 11pm. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Lawton stated his opinion that the plan appeared to be good; this intersection has seen a lot of sign variance applications. Because of the high density of existing signage in this area, Lawton is cautious to not create sign clutter along the S College Ave frontage. This request does a good job of spreading the multiple requested signs around the various sides of the building. Commission member San Filippo stated he does not have any issues with this application. Commission member Coffman stated his only issue is that the applicant already benefits from increased exposure due to the presence of the monument ground sign. Going above that and increase the signage allotment by 25 % seems unnecessary when visibility from college Ave is already excellent due to the monument sign. Chair Shuff thanked members for their input, adding that there does seem to be a hardship created by the location of the building, wherein it is inset away from the College frontage area. Looking at the staff recommendation and rationale, Shuff tends to agree. Either a removal of one sign or the reduction of one sign as an alternative would not have a large impact. The majority of property is not well-seen due to its location on S Mason St. Personally, Shuff is in support of the request and finds it reasonable. Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to APPROVE ZBA220031 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the increase in sign area is limited to three sides of the building and the ground sign; the ground sign is existing; the proposed signs do not exceed overall height or location limitations. Therefore, the variance requests 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: Carron, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: Coffman Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA220038 Address: 307 Wayne St Owner: Dan Walter & Carolyn Schultz-Walter Petitioner: Jeffrey J. Schneider, Contractor, Armstead Construction Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3), 4.7(E)(3) Project Description: This is a request for 2 variances: 1. Request for a new addition to encroach 5-feet into the required 15-foot rear setback. 2. Request to exceed the maximum floor area on the rear half of the lot by 628 square feet. The maximum allowed on the rear half of the lot is 468 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Akin Ave and Wayne St; the lot is square-shaped and fronts on the alleyway between Akin Ave and Woodford Ave, and faces Wayne St. The original lit was at one point a single lot, which was subsequently subdivided into two, each with an existing residence. The subject property is located on the southern lot. The shape of the lot then becomes unique within the Land Use Review Commission Page 4 Minutes – January 12, 2023 neighborhood, as it puts a lot of the primary building on the rea-half of the lot. Also, the existing structure encroaches into the rear setback as well. The request would be to re-size the existing attached garage. There is now a single car attached garage that meets the side setback but exceeds the rear setback. The proposed site plan shows the new garage, which still encroaches into the rear setback and continues to meet the side setback. The total square footage would exceed what is allowable for the lot. This size of lot is unique for the lot in that it is smaller than normal, and in fact does not meet the minimum lot size as prescribed by the Zone district; the primary building was constructed prior to existing Zone district standards. Beals presented existing and proposed site plans, noting the proposed garage would also include a new deck to provide entry to the upper-story office space which would be constructed as an element of proposed new garage. Elevation renderings describe what would be visible from street and alley views. Existing shed(s) are presumed to be moved or altered based on the proposed plans. Commission member Coffman asked if there were any existing easements, particularly on the alley side? Beals responded there are no known easements at this time. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jeff Schneider, Armstead Constructions, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Schneider reiterated that this is a non-conforming existing structure with the rear setback encroachment, and the proposed structure conforms to all setbacks with the alley. The proposal also complies to all FAR allowable for the lot. The overall allowable for the lot is not being exceeded, merely the rear-half FAR. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if there are any plans for utilities to be included in the proposed area? Schneider stated that the homeowner is currently working from home post-pandemic, so this space would be purely an office space. There is no planned bathroom or similar use of utilities. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated he did not find any problems with the request, noting there is clearly a hardship due to the size and location of the lot, wherein exceeding the allowance for the rear of the lot is unavoidable. Chair Shuff commented for the benefit of new Commission members that this type of request is seen frequently by the Commission, where an existing condition or shape of the lot creates a hardship requiring variance requests. Vice-Chair Lawton offered agreement with Shuff’s comments, and voiced his support for the request as it has been proposed. Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA220038 for the following reasons: granting of the modification of standard is not detrimental to the public good; the lot size is significantly smaller in size within the context of the neighborhood and the required minimum for the N-C-L zone district; the unique shape of the lost results in more of the primary house to be in the rear-half of the property; the existing house and attached deck already encroach into the setback. Therefore, the variance request is moved to be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Land Use Review Commission Page 5 Minutes – January 12, 2023 3. APPEAL ZBA220039 Address: 305 Park St. Owner: Dan MacKinnon Petitioner: Jeffrey J. Schneider, Contractor, Armstead Construction Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(5) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum square footage for an accessory building with habitable space by 67 square feet. The maximum floor area for an accessory building with habitable space is 600 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Park St and Maple St. The request is to build a new garage with habitable space on the upper story. There is an existing garage on the property, which would be demolished, and the new garage take its place. The existing garage does not meet the side setback along the north property line; the new garage would meet the setback. Site plans show the new proposed garage as meeting both the side a rear setback of 5 feet. The proposed structure would exceed the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure by 67 sq ft. Beals explained the way the code defines floor area, for this particular zone district and this particular building, which is classified as an accessory building. In this instance, floor area includes everything on the first floor, and any area on the upper story where the ceiling height is 7.5 feet or above. Anything that is below a ceiling less than 7.5 feet high is not counted as floor area. The code restricts this type of building to 600sq ft; the initial floor area of the building is less than 600 feet, and some of the upper story does have area with ceiling above 7.5 feet, which does count towards the allowable maximum. The applicant is thus asking for another additional 67 sq ft to be approved. Elevations of the proposed structure were presented by Beals, along with pictures of the existing property taken from street and alley side views. Beals noted that this residence is more setback within the lot from the street side when compared to other residences in the neighborhood. The existing garage is a single-story two-car structure which does not meet the setback; Beals stated that the structure probably has some negative impact for stormwater runoff on to the neighbors’ property; the proposed structure would be setback and could decrease the negative impact. Pictures of the alley provide some context for some existing two-story buildings. *9:11am - Commission member Coffman recused himself from the discussion due to his residence being in close proximity to the applicant’s subject property. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if there were any limitations regarding the rear-half of the property, and percentage of square footage allowed? Beals responded that this proposal meets all of those requirements; the variance request here is only concerning additional square footage to an accessory building, which is limited to 600 sq ft. Chair Shuff asked if the applicant were to keep all ceiling heights below 7.5 feet, would they need a variance, given that the garage is 400sq ft. The ceiling height seems to be the trigger for the additional area calculation. Beals confirmed Shuff’s questions, stating that if ceiling heights were adjusted in the interior, a variance may not be needed and no exterior changes to the building would be needed regarding bulk or mass. Shuff noted that if ceiling heights were adjusted, it would then be possible to build a bigger garage footprint theoretically. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 Minutes – January 12, 2023 Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jeff Schneider, Armstead Constructions, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Schneider stated that his client was begun working from home and is planning on using the garage upper story for their home office. The planned bathroom would be used by the resident when in the office, as well as by family and visitors during holiday visits and similar. Schneider feels this is a nominal and inconsequential request. Commission member San Filippo asked if there were any cooking facilities planned for the second floor? Schneider responded there are not cooking facilities, only a restroom. Chair Shuff commented that his understanding of the Land Use Code was that it did not allow for cooking devices within an accessory building considered habitable space. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Lawton stated he could understand the need for both the office space and the planned bathroom and has no issues with the request. Commission member Carron stated his opinion that the design seems thoughtful, and minimizes height while still being a usable, livable space. Carron stated his support for approving the request. Commission member San Filippo also commended the well thought-out design, noting the fact that the side-yard setback would also now be brought into compliance. Chair Shuff summarized his previous comments, noting the applicant could potentially build a larger conforming structure with lower ceiling heights, but have chosen to trade internal ceiling height for a smaller footprint. This minimizes the impact of the overall structure. Shuff state his support for approving the request. Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA220039 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the proposed structure increases compliance with required setbacks; the proposed structure complies with the maximum building height; the additional 67 square feet is an 11% increase of the allowed floor area. Therefore, the variance requests 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: Carron, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel Recusal: Coffman THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA220040 Address: ZBA220040 Owner: Trinity Lutheran Church Petitioner: Katie Barron, Sign Committee Chairperson Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.1(J)(2)(b)(1) Project Description: This is a request to replace an existing primary detached sign with a new sign that will have an electronic messaging center display. The new sign will be 69 feet from the residential property to the north, and 81 feet from the residential property to the east. Signs containing an electronic messaging center display must be located 100 feet from the nearest residential property. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on E Stuart St, and is owned by the Trinity Lutheran Church. The request is to Land Use Review Commission Page 7 Minutes – January 12, 2023 take the exiting monument sign and convert it to an Electronic Message Center (EMC), where a portion of the sign would include a digital display that could be changed remotely via computer. The current sign is located on the east side of the property. Beals noted that if the request were approved, there were need to be verification that the location of the existing sign is not on the public right of way and is on private property. When taking measure of the leading edge of the monument sign to nearby residential properties, it is found that the distance is less than 100ft. From 400 E Stuart St it is 82 feet; from 404 E Stuart it is 70 feet; and from 408 E Stuart it is 73 feet. This is the code section that requires a variance, which states that an Electronic Message Center sign is require to be 100 feet away from a residential property. Beals noted the property to the east is not a residential property and does not need to meet the 100-foot setback. Beals noted that to comply with the standard the applicant could move the EMC further south on the property, to meet the 100-foot setback from a residential property. This proposal is asking to keep the existing monument sign in its current location to be able to reuse it for the proposed EMC. Images of the proposed EMC were presented. The bottom portion of the sign would have illuminated tenant panel signage, while the top-portion of the monument sign would contain the EMC. There are other standards concerning EMC, being that it can only take up 50% of the sign area, as well as light limitations pertaining to the color temperature and levels. Those elements are all in compliance within the proposed request. Street views east and west along E Stuart St. were presented by Beals, showing the location of the current and existing monument signs. Beals also noted potential alternative locations for the proposed signs that would comply with the required setback. Beals noted that because there is not an EMC on the current sign, it is considered conforming. Vice-Chair Lawton referred to packet materials, noting that the property to the east was measured as being 81 feet from the sign and therefore part of the issue. Beals clarified that after further review, it was determined that that property was not residential and thus does not require a variance. Chair Shuff asked if the property to the west is residential, if so, would it need to meet the requirement? Beals clarified the location of the sign as being on the east driveway; Shuff stated his misunderstanding that he believed the sign to the on the opposite drive lane. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Katie Barron, 4003 Sunstone Way, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Barron stated she was representing all tenants who share the property at 301 E Stuart St., including three churches and one preschool. The groups are working to install a sign that identifies each organization, as well as create a modern space that announces activities and events to their own members as well as neighbors and the larger community. Barron commented that with the street being tree-lined and the parking lot surrounding four sides of the building, sign placement is limited. When viewing the sign from the street-side, trees and cars in the parking lot can actually block the current sign. The existing sign is already electrified, and neighbors are used to having the sign in the current location. Barron stated that she had previously meet with three Zoning inspectors, and was told the proposed sign adheres to city code; the only exception being asked for is the 100-foot setback from residential. Barron shared that she had spoken with neighbors directly across the street, as well as the business next door. Four neighbors have endorsed the project and have provided signed letters of support (included in packet); two neighbors are concerned about light exposure. Barron responded that the group is able to control the light amount in the proposed sign and would be open to keeping the sign running during a reasonable timeframe each day to cut down on nighttime illumination. Barron noted the sign would be using revers-cut lettering, which may also reduce the light pollution. The proposed sign would be significantly shorter than the existing sign. Barron shared images of example illuminated signs, showing the difference between printed letter panels and reverse-cut lettering Land Use Review Commission Page 8 Minutes – January 12, 2023 Commission member San Filippo asked the hours of operations of the four organizations using the facility. Barron stated the pre-school keeps regular daytime/part-time hours, there are regularly scheduled office hours for church organizations; Sunday services draw heavier traffic. San Filippo asked what might be the latest hour of any given day the facility would be in operation? Barron introduced Pastor Rick, of Trinity Lutheran Church, in order to better-explain facility hours of operation. Rick stated the building is usually locked up by 9pm each evening. Daily hours tend to be 9am – 9pm. San Filippo asked if there may be special occasions that may go later than 9pm? Rick stated that even with events, most of the time they are done by 9pm. San Filippo asked if there were any need to have the sign illuminated past 9pm, when the building is essentially non-operations? Barron responded she did not believe so. San Filippo asked if they would be amenable to not illuminating the sign past 9pm? Barron answered that they would absolutely be ok with agreeing to that. San Filippo stated this could alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors to the north. Barron acknowledged the sentiment of the residents that they would like to maintain the neighborhood feel without businesses signage, while also acknowledging the desire of the applicant organizations to effectively advertise their presence and events. San Filippo asked what type of messaging would be displayed? Attorney Aaron Guin directed commission that they are not able to consider the content of the sign; the variance here is solely related to the fact that its an EMC that does not comply with the required setback. Public Comment: Member of the public Jan Friedlund, 2550 Custer Dr, Unit C11, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Friedlund identified herself as a member of the of the leadership of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, one of the three faith partners using 301 E Stuart St. Friedlund stated that the two letters in opposition to the request concern elements that are extraneous to the matter. The neighbors within the 100-foot setback have all stated their approval for the request, with letters submitted with application. In response to the staff recommendation for denial of the request, Friedlund stated that the group has spent a considerable amount of time for other locations that offer visibility, and there are none. Additionally, the existing location already has electricity, so reusing the location would save a substantial amount of money. Funds saved would be better spent serving the community, which is their sole goal. Member of the public Jill Barron, 400 E Stuart, addressed the Commission and offered Comment. J. Barron stated that they did not approve of the request, feeling as though it represented a change of the neighborhood character. They would like the church to be good neighbors even as they grow. The sign is visible out their bedroom window, and would be even more apparent if it were to include EMC/illuminated lighting. Member of the public John Roberts, 224 Canyon Ave, Unit 628, addressed the commission and offered comment. Roberts stated he was a member of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. Roberts explained that five years ago, three congregations got together to better utilize a building that was able to house multiple groups. The facility is now home to Trinity Lutheran Church, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, and Mary of Magdala Ecumenical Catholic Church, in addition to a pre-school. Fort the past five years, all three groups have not be seen on the existing sign due to its limitations. Roberts noted that the end of the sign is seen from across the street, while the illuminated portions are mainly visible from the travel lanes of the street. Member of the public Felicia Smithgraybeal, Pastor of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Smithgraybeal stated that as three congregations, they are doing their best to be good stewards of the environment by sharing one space. Additionally, they want to be good neighbors and believe that churches belong in neighborhoods. They will do their best to mitigate light pollution by turning of the sign by 9pm. Member of the public Katie Kline, 2507 Woodvalley Ct., addressed the Commission and offered comment. Kline identified herself as a member of the clergy at Trinity Lutheran Church, and would be speaking in favor of the request. Kline stated that they have attempted to design a sign that does not appear to be a commercial sign, but more of a neighborhood-appropriate sign. They would be Land Use Review Commission Page 9 Minutes – January 12, 2023 mindful of light levels as well as times of display. Without proper signage, they know that other groups have at times missed their location. Member of the public Leonard Russ, 931 Arbor Ave., addressed the commission and offered comment. Russ stated that he is a member of Mary of Magdala, noting the congregation was formed in 2012 and had not building at first. St. Paul’s then invited them to use their building on West Elizabeth St. That property was subsequently sold, and Trinity Lutheran Church then invite both St. Paul’s and Mary of Magdala to join them in 301 E Stuart. Russ noted that the proposed sign is very important to them so that people will be aware of their location. Russ noted the existing sign stays lit all night long and is much taller than 5 feet – the proposed sign is only 5 feet 9 inches. Beals noted that the applicant did submit two additional letters of endorsement after the packet was posted, and they would be read into the record now. Beals noted it is a similar letter to what was provided in the packet, but now signed by two additional persons. Beals then read the following letter: The existing sign for Trinity Lutheran Church is located at the East driveway on Stuart Street. The sign has been there for more than 18 years. Currently, there are three additional organizations that use the facilities at 301 E. Stuart: Trinity Lutheran Church, Trinity Preschool, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, and Mary of Magdala Catholic Church. Collectively, the organizations would like to have a sign that lists all the occupants as well upgrade from a changeable letter board toa digital sign that can be programmed remotely to display various events and activities for the location. The existing sign sits 69 feet from the property line of the North neighbor at 404 E. Stuart and 81 feet from Mountain Kid’s, the property line of the East neighbor. City code stipulates that a digital sign – electronic message centers (EMC) – must be a distance of 100 feet. On behalf of the organization at 301 E. Stuart, I would like to request a variance for distance that would allow a new replacement sign, that meets all code requirements, be allowed to be placed in the existing sign’s location. The neighbors at 404 E. Stuart and 419 E. Stuart have been presented with our request for a distance variance and have given their endorsement to both replace the sign and install an EMC. Signed: Adam Stater, 340 E. Stuart St. Signed: B. Lee 412 E. Stuart St. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman asked Beals to present the aerial view for consideration. For clarification, Coffman asked if we had received letters of support from 400 and 408 E Stuart. Beals stated that 400 E. Stuart had offered objection, and 408 E. Stuart had also submitted a letter of objection, Coffman acknowledged the need for a new sign, and noted the difficulties presented by tree overhangs and parked cars. However, Coffman stated that he was having an issue with understanding the necessity of an EMC, as opposed to a conventional lit sign. Commission member Carron agreed with the thoughts of Coffman, that a new sign makes sense in order to call out the various organizations that now occupy the facilities. However, Carron does not see the need to an EMC. There may be other opportunities to replace an existing wayfinding sign on the property in a way that would meet code and function well. Commission member McCoy stated that he would have favored this request, but for the two dissents from those within the 100-foot setback distance. Even though there are obstacles for moving the sign back, they could probably still create a sign that functions just as well. Commission member San Filippo stated he was pleased that the applicant showed willingness to have the sign non-illuminated after 9pm at night, which factors into his thinking. However, a message board sign/EMC may not be necessary for a church organization, where it can be reasonably assumed that most members and visitors know the hours of operations and of individual Land Use Review Commission Page 10 Minutes – January 12, 2023 services. The sign as proposed would likely have an impact on the neighborhood, and could be more-shielded to direct the focus of the sign and illumination to the east and west, rather than having any display to the property owners across the street. Additionally, posted speeds are low along this street, and this would be a destination for travel, not an impulse stop. San Filippo stated that he would not be in favor of supporting the variance application. Vice-Chair Lawton applauded the church and facility for being able to accommodate multiple occupants at different times, and giving them all opportunities to provide fellowship. Lawton stated that regardless of the support/objection of neighbors, what the Commission needs to look at is long- term implications. Neighbors may come and go – the code is in place to provide limitations based upon whoever is there. Financial implications of moving the sign aren’t to be considered by the Commission, and there does appear to the opportunity for compliance if the sign is moved. Lawton would not be in support of the request. Chair Shuff referenced the need to find balance between the neighborhood and church; having the two letters of opposition causes pause, and this section of code is fairly specific in addressing this particular application of this type of signage. Shuff would have a hard time supporting this request as proposed. There may be other ways that the applicant could achieve their goals through alternative means. Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to DENY ZBA220040 under section 2.10.4(H) for the following reasons: the request is at least 30% deviation from the standard; the sign can be setback further south to comply with the setback. Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship for the property; 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: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 5. APPEAL ZBA220041 Address: 135 Bockman Dr. Owner: Boniuk Interests Ltd Petitioner: Jeff Everhart, Sign Contractor, Concept Signs & Graphics Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Table(B) Project Description: This is a request for a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign height by 1 foot 6 inches. The maximum wall sign height is 7 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that application may be familiar to some members of the Commission, as the applicant came in front of the Commission this past November asking for additional height to three wall signs. This Commission approved two of those signs at additional increase in height and denied the third sign. The approval increased those two wall signs to an additional foot and a half, from the allowed 7 feet to 8.5 feet. At the time, the wall sign on the west side of the building, facing S College Ave., was more than 1.5 foot increase and the Commission denied that request. The current request to is to look at the west-facing wall sign again, and consider an increase of 1.5 feet that was granted for signs on the east and south sides of the building. For orientation, Beals noted that the property is located on Bockman Dr. and S College Ave, with additional frontage along JFK Pkwy. The building is being converted into a new tenant space. Beals showed images the south and east elevations, noting the sings that have already been granted a variance. The new proposal would add the same size of sign to the front of the building. Land Use Review Commission Page 11 Minutes – January 12, 2023 Beals also noted that this property does have a ground sign that fronts S College Ave, and this ground signs gives them the ability to have a larger sign at that location than is allowed on the west side wall. The previous tenant did employ this ground sign; current tenants are proposing re-using the existing base for support of a new sign element. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals to describe the differences between what was previously denied and what is being requested currently. Beals explained that the denied sign was requested to be approximately 11 feet tall. The current request is for a sign 8.5 feet tall; code limits wall signs to a maximum height of 7 feet. The previous tenant did not have a variance and was in compliance with the 7-foot wall sigh height. Commission member McCoy asked for clarification that this request deals only with the wall sign, and does not affect the ground sign. Beals confirmed this as correct, noting that the ground sign can be refaced as designed in the submitted packet. Because the property fronts on three or four streets, there is a lot of total sign area available. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jeff Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics, 3307 S College Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Everhart explained that the previous request was for a 12 foot x 20 foot sign; the Commission determined that was just too large. Part of the challenge is that the tenant’s branding logo is oval shaped, which limits readability when size is minimized. Now that the other two signs have been approved at the 8.5 foot height, it seems reasonable to approve the same height for the entrance side; it may look strange if the primary sign were smaller than the two side-wall signs. Everhart noted that the distance from the street to the building is so large that there really would not be a negative impact for having a sign at 8.5 feet height. The scale of the building itself is fairly massive, so having a slight increase in sign height should not have an overall detrimental effect or create additional distraction. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Everhart to describe the sign’s lighting method. Everhart indicated the sign would be lit internally with LED lights. The brown portions of the sign are block-out, so would not actually be illuminated. Commission member San Filippo commented that proposed sign seems primarily to function as a designation for the front entrance. Additionally, San Filippo stated that there does not appear to be anything physically preventing the applicant from conforming to the 7-foot maximum. Everhart agreed with these statements. San Filippo questioned what the actual hardship is. Once customers are on the property by virtue of the monument sign, the proposed sign essentially signals the entrance to the actual building. Everhart stated that because the parking lot is so big, someone parked at the far end of the lot would benefit from the increase sign visibility over the entrance. Likewise, the tenant could theoretically install much more signage that conformed to code but would fit in less well with the community feel. The company uses their single logo across the country, so developing alternative signs may not be possible. Commission member Carron commented that the proposed sign is 122.5 sq ft – how large of a sign could technically be put on the face of the building per code? Beals explained that there is a limitation on height, but not limitation on width. Width would be dictated by your total sign allowance and how that total is being divided between multiple signs. Because there is so much frontage on this property, there is quite a bit of associated sign allowance on the property. Everhart added that the proposed sign is maybe a third to a half of the size of what the previous tenant had before. Commission member McCoy asked if there had been a change to the gable design compared to what was seen previously. Beals explained that the current proposed façade has not changed from last time, but overall, the façade has been changed when compared to the previous tenant. Lawton added that the oval shape of the sign is an allusion to the shape of a Western belt buckle, and is an intentional design choice for their signage. Public Comment: -NONE- Land Use Review Commission Page 12 Minutes – January 12, 2023 Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Lawton continued his thought, noting that the previous request was denied because it was simply too large; this new proposal has seen a reduction from that request. The setback from S College Ave is quite substantial, so if the sign was much smaller it would begin to impede readability. The applicant has come back with a fairly good revised plan, and Lawton would be in support of granting the request. Commission member Coffman agreed with earlier comments offered by Commission members, noting that there really doesn’t appear to be a hardship here. Given the large setback and reduced size of the proposed sign, Coffman feels that the overall visual impact is minimal. Shuff agreed, stating that the actual justification for variance may be equal to or better than. The sign as presented may have less visual impact than alternative designs that might be wider but held to the 7-foot height. Commission member San Filippo also alluded to the large distance from the street to the property, stating that because of these expanded distances the increased sign height if approved would be inconsequential. San Filippo would be in support of granting the variance. Commission member McCoy commented that he tended to towards the first, larger sign given the size of the building. The building is very big and could have been an multi-tenant facility, which would potentially include numerous different signs. McCoy is in favor of this proposal. Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA220041 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the sign as proposed would serve equal to or better than a sign conforming to the standard 7-foot height; the signage of the building is well within the sign allowance given the street frontage of the building, which results in a nominal and inconsequential impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 6. APPEAL ZBA220042 Address: 4114 Rolling Gate Rd. Owner/Petitioner: Susan and Terry Gibbons Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request for three pergolas to encroach 4.5 feet into the interior 5-foot side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Rolling Gate Rd., and backs up against Webber Middle School sports fields. The request is to build three pergolas along the side property line. Because these are structures, and based on their distance to the property line, they do require a building permit and need to meet the side setback. In this zone district the side setback is 5 feet. The applicants noted that there is a shed along the neighboring property line, which did not require a permit or need to meet setbacks due to its size. The issue here is that the pergolas act similar to a structure and a fence at the same time. Lattice panels at the top of the pergolas extend the effective fence height, acting as an extension of the existing privacy fence. There are two separate designs for the pergolas: a smaller design for the middle unit and larger designs for each side pergola. Beals noted that all three structures are open on all sides, except the sides that are against the fence which creates the barrier. The roofs are open as well. Beals also presented images of the front and rear of the property currently, calling out the approximate location of the pergolas along the rear side fence line. Land Use Review Commission Page 13 Minutes – January 12, 2023 Commission member Coffman asked Beals to explain why these pergolas require a building permit. Beals explained that our building code requires a permit when a structure gets in within zero to three feet of a property to ensure that they are fire rated. When that happens, Zoning must look to see if they meet the setbacks as well. Because this a structure that requires a permit and also functions as a de facto fence, it was suggested that they do need to mee the setback or seek a variance. Coffman asked if a shed within three feet of the home would also require a building permit; Beals answered that a fire rating building permit would be required in that scenario. Commission member Carron asked if there were any type of setback reductions that may be pertinent to this request, asking Beals to confirm the height of the pergolas. Beals confirmed the height of the proposed pergolas as being 8 feet. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals if there were any effect created by the lattice element proposed with the pergolas? Beals explained that it needs a variance because the lattice effectively extends the height of the privacy fence beyond what is allowed within code. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Susan and Terry Gibbons, 4114 Rolling Gate Rd., addressed the Commission and offered comment. S. Gibbons explained that she had the house built 21 years ago, and paid a premium for the lot due to the view out the back. Recently, new neighbors moved in next to them and subsequently put up a shed along their shared fence line. The shed now impedes a portion of the Gibbons’ view out the back. The applicants stated they have worked with numerous landscapers to develop a plan that would help to block the view of the shed. New plantings are not feasible due to the risk of damaging the root system of an extant tree. Terry Gibbons also alluded to the specific challenges of the property due to tree roots, and indicated that they are trying to find a solution for themselves while also acknowledging the right of their neighbors to have a shed on their own property. Commission member Carron noted that the grade of the backyard is made apparent by the photo included in the packet, which shows the visibility of the shed due to the difference in grade between the home and the rear of the yard. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he did not see any detrimental impact from the proposed design. The pergolas are not a full fence up to 8 feet, they are intermittent, the pergolas themselves are transparent; and the grading of the lot towards the rear is going to reduce the impact event further. Commission member Carron stated that sometimes what does or does not need a permit can be a bit confusing. In this condition, being closer to the fence doesn’t really change the impact. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that from an aesthetic perspective, the proposed pergolas would be a benefit. Event without an issue with the viewshed, these pergolas would be a nice addition to the property. Lawton is in support of granting the variance request. Commission member McCoy commented that we has surprised this project needed a variance, but appreciated Beal’s explanation of why these structures required a building permit and variance. McCoy is in support of granting the variance request. Commission member San Filippo agrees with previous comments of the Commission, and added that this was a very attractive solution for screening the view, and congratulates the landscape company on their proposed design. Chair Shuff also called out the possible gray area between what is considered a “structure”, but regardless this represents a really nice improvement to the fence. Whether or not the purpose is to Land Use Review Commission Page 14 Minutes – January 12, 2023 screen the view or not, this will be something that will be enjoyed the homeowners and will enhance the view from the neighbor’s property as well. Shuff is in support of granting the variance request. Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to APPROVE ZBA220042 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the pergolas extend 2- feet beyond the 6-foot privacy fence with semi-transparent lattices; two pergolas are 7.5 feet in width and the other is 5.5 feet. Therefore, the variance will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and 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: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS 1. Election of officers for 2023 Beals explained that Chair and Vice-Chair are elected each year, at the end of the regular January hearing. Chair is elected first, followed by Vice-Chair. Each election needs to be done through a motion. The Commission may hold discussion prior to each motion, followed by a roll call vote. Responsibility of the Chairperson includes leading meetings and opening procedures, as well as providing final discussion on each item. Vice-Chair steps into those responsibilities if/when the Chair is unable to attend a meeting. Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to nominate Ian Shuff as Chairperson. Shuff accepted the nomination. Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED; SHUFF WAS ELECTED CHAIR FOR 2023 Shuff stated his goals as Chair, including making sure discussion is focused on-topic and centered, and that the legalese part is correct, with motions being tied to code and the three standards of justification. Shuff indicated he may miss 1-2 meetings, but generally is available for all meetings upcoming. Chair Shuff made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to nominate Dave Lawton as Vice-Chair. Lawton accepted the nomination. Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED; LAWTON WAS ELECTED VICE-CHAIR FOR 2023 Lawton stated he feels comfortable with the nominations, noting that he had previously served on this Commission during the 1980’s -90’s, and feels comfortable with the process and types of requests that come before this Commission. Lawton is also comfortable with taking over Chair responsibilities if/when needed due to absence on behalf of Shuff. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:55am Meeting Minutes were approved unanimously at the March 9, 2023 LURC Regular Meeting.