Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 01/09/2025 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro 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 DECEMBER 12, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Commission member Coffman to approve the November 14, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA240022 POSTPONED Address: 339 Wood St Owner/Petitioner: Kirt Trujillo 2. APPEAL ZBA240030 Address: 433 N Roosevelt Ave Owner/Petitioner: Matt Lawrence Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 2.1.4 Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback. Staff Presentation: LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – December 12, 2024 Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Elm St and N Roosevelt Ave. It is part of a single unit residential development. The request is to build a shed in the back yard and encroach into the rear setback. The request has been revised to request a 9-foot encroachment, or 6 feet from the rear property line. When originally submitted, the request was for a 10-foot encroachment, meaning that the shed would be placed 5-feet from the rear property line. The reason for the revised request will be discussed further. Beals presented aerial views of the subject property, noting the proposed location of the shed. Present in the back of the property is a 6-foot utility easement, thus the revised request so as to not encroach into the easement. Staff recommend a 7-foot encroachment to provide space for the eaves of the shed to clear the easement as well. 6 feet could work as well, as long as it is being measured from the eaves and not the wall. The proposed shed is approximately 13 feet in height, rectangular in shape, with the two taller walls facing north/south. The longer walls with shorter height face the front and rear property lines (east/west). A concrete pad has already been poured, which may need to be adjusted based on the decision rendered today. Currently it is 5 feet from the back property line. There is also a penned area intended for goats and chickens located in the back yard. Applicant Presentation: Matt Lawrence, owner, 433 N Roosevelt Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Lawrence noted that he and his daughter reside in the converted garage space on the property, while renting out the primary residence to others, and desire a shed on-site to provide additional storage. Lawrence stated his opinion that if approved, the shed would have a nominal and inconsequential impact on the neighborhood. Lawrence further noted that other properties in the neighborhood have animals, treehouses, sheds etc. present in their rear yards. Lawrence also noted that the previous owners did have goats in the penned area, but there are currently no goats present. The renters who live in the primary residence are currently raising chickens in the pen. Lawrence stated that the concrete pad was poured 5 feet from the back property line, before he was aware of the utility easement. He has contacted the concrete contractor, and shifting the pad wouldn’t be difficult. Lawrence went on to commend staff for their efforts with this request, stating the variance request process has been easy. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman sees no problem with allowing a 6-foot setback from the eave. Coffman noted that this neighborhood has many structures within the 15-foot setback. Commission member Carron agrees. Commission member San Filippo agrees. Vice-Chair Lawton offered his appreciation for the applicant’s attempt at making accommodations for the utility easement. Lawton states he has no problems with application as presented. Chair Shuff agrees. The property has a pretty big setback relative to adjacent Zoning Districts. Shuff feels that this is a reasonable request. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron to APPROVE ZBA240030 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 to allow an encroachment of 9 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet, in order to construct the proposed accessory building in the R-L Zone District as shown in the materials for this hearing. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – December 12, 2024 The Commission finds that the variances would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 2.1.4 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: The 9-foot encroachment will not overlap the utility easement; the structure is 120 square feet in size; and the shorter wall faces north and south. This decision is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of the fact, and conclusions regarding the variances contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Shuff, San Filippo, Carron, McCoy, Vogel Nays: - Absent: - 3. APPEAL ZBA240031 Address: 5721 S College Ave Owner: WWW Properties LLC Petitioner: Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, Inc. Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 5.16.2(B) Table B Wall Signs, 5.16.2(B) Table (G)(1) Freestanding Permanent Signs Project Description: This variance has two requests: 1) This is a request for a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign height by 7 feet .58 inches. The maximum wall sign height is 7 feet in the commercial/industrial sign district. 2) This is a request to install a second primary detached sign along the east frontage. Only one primary sign per frontage is allowed in the commercial/industrial sign district. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at the south end of Fort Collins, at the corner of the new extension of Venus Ave and S College Ave. The request is for a sign to be over 7 feet tall on the front of the building, as well as a second free standing sign to be placed on the property. This property recently received development approval and is currently underway with the construction process. The first sign request is for a new freestanding sign; Code allows for only one freestanding sign per property. They are allowed to have additional accessory freestanding signs at the vehicle entrance to the property and do have one currently at the vehicle entrance located on the south end of the property. The request today is to place another freestanding sign on the corner of Venus and College. The area next to the proposed sign is reserved for inventory parking/display. The approved monument sign is located at the front of the building, which is about midway along the frontage along S College Ave. Beals presented renderings of the proposed freestanding and building signs. The proposed sign on the building is over 14 feet in overall height, or double what is allowed by code. This sign would be placed on the front of the building, near the double-door entrance and would face S College Ave. Other signage on the building is in compliance with the Code. There is enough signage allowance for the signage being proposed, but it does not fit the other standards of the Code. Referencing the development process, Beals described a “clip” element that was originally approved. During Development Review process, the clip was designed to function as an architectural element of the building denoting the main entrance. Signage is not reviewed or approved during the Development Review Process. Since then, that plan has been revised to instead place a wall sign at the location of Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – December 12, 2024 the clip. Wall signs must not extend beyond the lines of the roof. The proposed sign lines up with the top-most roofline. This type of use in the Zone District would be required to be brought up to the public right of way, and not include any display area between the property and the public sidewalk. The applicants chose instead to request a modification to allow the building to be set further back from the public sidewalk. Beals presented pictures of the property, noting the proposed location of the signs on the property. From the south looking north, the accessory sign at the south vehicle entrance is visible. Vehicle entrance area is only going into the dealership area; Venus Ave is considered public right of way and thus is not considered a vehicle entrance. Commission member McCoy asked Beals to reiterate his comments concerning Venus Ave extension. Beals responded that Code does allow for a secondary sign along a vehicle entrance. However, Venus Ave is a public street that extends all the way into the adjacent neighborhood and is not considered the entrance to the property. Commission member Carron asked if sign allowance is still available for the property. Beals explains that while total sign allowance remains, the additional entrance signage is not permitted by Code. The sign size is over what is allowed, and it is considered a second freestanding sign, not an accessory sign. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if the “Nissan” and “Fort Collins” words shown on the front of the building are included in the sign allowance? Beals confirmed they are allowed and are in compliance. Beals explained that the red background and text of the proposed sign is considered/measured in total. Commission member San Filippo asked how the Nissan “badge” compares to the height of other dealer signs in Fort Collins. Beals does not have those measurements at-hand Commission member Coffman determined that the logo portion is approximately 8-feet tall based on materials and measurements contained therein. Applicant Presentation Applicant rep Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, 907 Cameron Drive, Severance, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. The request for increased sign size is related to the increase in building setback that was requested and granted during the Design Review process. Hashaw explained the “display” area adjacent to the public right of way is actually ADA and public customer parking. Applicants feel the proposed sign is within the architectural elements of the building. If reduced in size, the sign will no longer be legible by traffic. Regarding the second monument sign proposed, dealership access can be taken from Venus Ave. Monument signs would be approximately 700 feet apart, which mirrors other municipalities’ code. Chair Shuff asked if the existing secondary monument sign differs in design. Hashaw responded no. Commission member San Filippo asked if the existing facility to the south is to remain? Hashaw explained it will become a separate Kia dealership, and all existing signage will come down. San Filippo asked if the proposed secondary monument sign is intended to denote access to the dealership for north-bound traffic. Hashaw confirms. Public Comment: Jay Weibold, property owner, residing at 16 Riverside Dr, Bellvue, CO states he is nervous. The proposed signage is in line with Nissan’s global design standard. The proposed sign for the front of the building was originally designed in black, but Nissan required red. Weibold hopes that the Commission will approve the request as presented. The project has already cost approximately $20million, and he feels the proposed red sign would be in line with the design of the building overall. Commission Discussion: Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – December 12, 2024 Commission member Carron refers to photo taken from the north, where there is a line of site issue due to grade change which partially conceals the building. Carron stated that there could be an argument for secondary sign to assist with wayfinding. Chair Shuff agrees, there is a lot of grade to overcome when considering south-bound visibility. Commission member Vogel asks if what is shown in photograph being referenced is the main entrance or a public street. Shuff confirms it is a public street – Venus Ave. Commission member Coffman notes there is signage allowance, and thus the applicants could potentially put a sign on the north face. Coffman doesn’t feel there is a visibility issue. Vice-Chair Lawton has visited the location, and missed the turn off each time when going to old building. Glad there is now a turn-off with the new extension of Venus Ave. Lawton understands it could be on the building itself. It would be helpful to have some indicator that dealership entrance is present. The front signage is big, and Lawton understands there was a proposal to move building closer to street. This is a self-imposed condition. San Filippo refers to the approved sign, asked if applicants would be able to move closer to the in/out driveway apron to the south? This might alert one that property entrance is possible from south. Would that require a variance to move? Beals explained that the secondary sign at the south entrance must remain. The primary freestanding can be moved anywhere along the frontage and could be placed at the location where the secondary sign is being requested. To clarify, Beals noted the development always proposed to set the building back and requested a modification. San Filippo asked if two monument signs could be present, with one approved being moved? Beals clarified that the vehicle entrance sign can’t be moved; primary sign already approved could be amended and relocated anywhere along the frontage. However, it must be a certain distance from the secondary sign. Coffman is not seeing a good argument for either variance request. The second monument sign may be nice, but this parcel has public access from the rear. That does not entitle them to an additional monument sign. Sign on the face of the building may be redundant given the size of the “NISSAN” text, which could be duplicated on the north side. The shape of logo provides recognition, not necessarily just the legibility of text. Shuff asked how tall was the horizontal band element on top of the building, where lettering is located? Jay Weibold answered that the glass elements at the top of the building is opaque glass/white so the back of sign would not be visible from the inside of the building. The opaque glass is the same size as proposed sign (14.8 feet). The black lettering is approximately 5.5 feet tall. Weibold also explained that Venus Ave is easier and safer access than the south vehicle drive; if missed, potential traffic increases within neighborhoods. Wiebold stated they vacated a portion of the road to alleviate traffic concerns. Weibold offered commented regarding the “tablet” sign proposed for the front of the building, stating that a smaller size sign might look funny. They have already spent $20milllion on the building. The variance to move the building back allows for six additional electric charging spots and ADA parking spots. That area is not intended to be used for inventory display. Shuff feels that having secondary signage at Venus Ave may help the facility function and customer entry. Shuff agrees that we don’t want people circling the neighborhood because they have missed a property entrance. If the secondary accessory sign complied with secondary signage standards, he could be amenable to the request. The site is large and needs vehicular wayfinding. Shuff is more hesitant to approve the requested main building signage. From a scale/proportion perspective, it can become quite diminished. Guest parking and ADA is necessary for a dealership, so building setback makes sense. Nuance comes into play when considering logo vs color vs overall sign area. Carron agrees with Shuff’s idea to provide secondary signage at Venus Ave. City considers the main sign area to include logo and brand-color background. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – December 12, 2024 Coffman supports secondary signage standards for proposed monument sign. Coffman is not in support of the primary wall sign. Vogel agrees with Coffman and notes her challenge in approving large signage that appears to face a residential area. Weibold states there is not a neighborhood across the street, but is a neighborhood behind the dealership, and there was a previous request to take down the oversized flag that used to be present. That was the only issue brought forth by neighboring residents. San Filippo has no issue with secondary signage at Venus Ave; motorists need to be alerted to access point. However, the wall sign is troubling, as “NISSAN” and “Fort Collins” are present on the face of the building. Tablet signs can be scaled by sign makers to maintain compliance with sign code and could easily be sized down to 7 feet in order to comply with local sign standards. Coffman asked Beals what the primary characteristics are that denote a secondary sign compared to a primary sign. Beals notes it is based on overall area (16 square feet) and maximum height (4 feet). Coffman clarifies that secondary sign could be approved if the sign is not associated with vehicle entrance, based on current discussion. Lawton offered comment on front wall sign; the time to take advantage of sign code is now, at the beginning of development rather than granting variances in the future. There are options for bringing the sign into compliance so as to maintain standards. The area will continue to develop, so it is important to stick with current standards. Beals gives reminder that content/colors/logos are not considered; sign code is related to overall sign area, height, and other physical requirements set forth in code. Regulation is not based on content. Hashaw commented that if the second monument sign were to be scaled down, it would be too small to be visible by motorists. Hashaw is not in favor of conditional approval of a secondary sign that would meet the standards of a secondary accessory sign. Shuff notes intent if that sign is for folks travelling south. The Commission is trying to find a compromise. Weibold states his biggest concern is tablet sign. Opaque glass backing will then be visible bordering a reduced-size wall sign. There used to be two billboards on the property. Weibold states he was originally told that red color and clip elements were not desirable. The sign design was then changed; Nissan Corp. then came back and would not allow black to be used and required that the sign be created in red. He stated that he thought the sign package would be approved but is now facing denial. If the monument sign is removed, could the tablet sign be sized at the proposed scale? Weibold is concerned the building could look funny, after a $20million investment. The goal with the monument sign is to provide safe access to the building. Biggest concern is the front tablet sign. They could potentially remove signage to accommodate tablet sign as proposed. Coffman states his thought is that the problem with the proposal is to avoid setting precedent to allow national standards to overcome local standards. The reason for leaning towards approval of the secondary sign is to achieve traffic safety. The proposed larger sign on the face of the building isn’t fulfilling that purpose. Shuff asked for thoughts on reducing the monument sign for relocation. Coffman responded that the property already has excess signage allowance. Vogel noted that standards are very different from what was been designed and built. She understands the frustrations of corporate brand standards, but we need to maintain code standards specific to Fort Collins. After discussion, Vogel would be open to allowing a secondary sign but not comfortable with allowing a large wall sign as proposed. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 APPROVED Minutes – December 12, 2024 Carron states that leaving the monument sign where it is currently improves traffic safety. Lots of sign allowance remains; there are multiple opportunities to assist with wayfinding. San Filippo asked Beals how large the approved monument sign is? Bigger than 16 square feet? Beals responds yes, approximately 37 square feet, and is double-sided. McCoy agrees with comments offered by Shuff, noting he has no problem with monument sign at Venus Ave; this is a unique building for this portion of S College Ave. Unfortunate that it came to this stage without design discussion before now. The Commission needs to maintain code standards. McCoy understands corporate sign standards; however, the building itself is easily identified as the Nissan dealership. San Filippo recommends that the applicant table this request in order to reconsider potential sign placement revisions, especially considering monument sign placement. Beals notes that the intersection of Venus and College now has a traffic control light. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel to APPROVE IN PART ZBA240031 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 5.16.2 (G), to allow an additional secondary detached sign, separate from vehicle entrance, to be installed along the east frontage in the C-G Zone District, as discussed in the hearing. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the proposed signage will promote the general purpose of Section 5.16.2(B) equally well or better than would signage which complies with that Section, in consideration of the facts discussed. This decision is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Shuff, San Filippo, Carron, McCoy, Vogel Nays: - Absent: - Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to DENY IN PART ZBA240031 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 5.16.2(B), finding that the variance as submitted would be detrimental to the public good; and the variance as submitted would not comply with the Land Use Code variance standards contained in Section 6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(4), in consideration of the following facts: The variance will significantly increase the signage along the property, specifically a 100% increase in wall sign height; the inventory display area is visible along 90% of the College Ave frontage; insufficient evidence has been provided showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally better than a proposal that complies with the standard; and insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. The decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Shuff, San Filippo, Carron, McCoy, Vogel Nays: - Absent: - • OTHER BUSINESS Review and approval of the 2025 Work Plan. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel to approve the 2025 Work Plan. The motion was approved by all members present with clerical correction as requested. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:47am MEETING MINUTES WERE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY AT THE JAN. 9, 2025 MEETING