Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/2000 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD
OOF A APPEALS
AGE
Regular Meeting
, May 11, 2000
F
1, Roll Call
Minutes from the April 13, 2000, meeting.
2 Approval of the
3 Appeal : 2294
the required rear yard setbackeast .3 the alley line rom 5 feet to 0
The variance wo
uld reduce lot from 5 feet to 2 feet
feet, and reduce the required side yard setback from the 3 c and with
a new
gable
le
low the existing flat-pitched roof to be removed4$ D)( j(a)ed with a new gable
in order to al he garage will remain. Sect
so
by
roof. TheHughes,
SOwnting err. 320of tE Mulberry.
Ann Hug
4. Appeal : 2295 Specifically,
, the
t in
Th
e variance would allow an individual lettr sign dweiser'ndividual letter signs on the north
variance would allow the existing 19 foot tall I the other letters will be 10.5 feet
and sout
h waifs to be removed and replaced with n a 15 feet tall "Budweiser' individual
on from
letter signs. (Only the `B', `d', and Twill be 15 fee ,
new signs will result in a 24/o size reduction and
a6oPlang Manager, An�heuser
tall). The g 1 b Steven D. McDaniel,
the current signs. Section 3.81( ), Y
Busch. 2351 Busch Drive.
r
5 appeal : 2296 Appeals to
April 13, 2000, the applicant received a 15 feet to 12 feet in order tovariance from the Zoning allowan addition.
ard of On P
reduce the front setback requirement from 1 removed since the curb in front of
The
variance was approed with the condition that a curb cut be installed for the driveway
area. The applicant is requesting that this condition eb and is the type of
a "Hollywood curb", which is an acceptable drive-over efee r The Board mistakenly
ur
the home is Y'^' David ak ele,
curb found in front of a non-drive-over the hrvert cal curb. Section — none. BY
thought the curb was fe Street.
Tenant. 1113 Map
g, Other Business
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
May 11, 2000
Appeal 2294:
--- 320 E. Mulberry
--- Petitioner: Ann Hughes, Owner
--- Zone: NCB
--- 4.8(D)(3)(c) and 4.8(D)(3)(d)
--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the alley from 5 feet to 0
feet, and reduce the required side yard setback from the east lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet
in order to allow the existing flat-pitched roof to be removed and replaced with a new gable
roof. The existing walls of the garage will remain.
�' --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing garage/carriage house is very old. The
current flat-roof is in bad shape and leaks a great deal. Rather than replace it with another
flat roof, the owner desires to construct a gable roof. Such a roof will match the roof of the
house. The existing walls will remain, so there will be no greater deviation from the
setbacks than already existing.
--- Staff comments: None.
t
Appeal 2295:
--- 2351 Busch Drive
--- Petitioner: Steven D. McDaniel, Plant Manager, Anheuser-Busch
--- Zone: I
--- 3.8.7(I)
--- The variance would allow an individual lettr sign to exceed 7 feet in height. Specifically, the
variance would allow the existing 19 foot tall "Budweiser" individual letter signs on the north
and south walls to be removed and replaced with new 15 feet tall "Budweiser" individual
letter signs. (Only the `B', `d', and Twill be 15 feet tall, the other letters will be 10.5 feet
tall). The new signs will result in a 24% size reduction and a 64% brightness reduction from
the current signs.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. Also, the intent of the code is
being met since the height limit of wall signs is intended to protect the streetscape along
urban arterial streets and commerical strips by ensuring that the size of the wall signs is
in keeping with the mass and scale of buildings. The location, mass, and scale of the AB
building are very unique, and the larger signs will actually enhance the appearance of the
large walls by providing necessary articulation and variation.
--- Staff comments: Numerous sign code changes were enacted in 1994. One of the changes
was to establish a regulation that limited the maximum height of wall signs to 7 feet. (There
was no height limit prior to 1994). The new regulation was in response to City Council's
concern over the height of a few wall signs on buildings located along College Avenue. The
reasoning behind the change was that large signs can overpower the streetscape when
they are located on buildings close to the street and near street level.
The Sign Code has always had regulations with regards to size and height of freestanding
signs along street frontages. However, without some restriction on the size of a wall sign,
the benefits gained by regulating freestanding signs could be negated. Large wall signs on
buildings close to the street could actually become the focal point of the building, rather
than the building architecture and other site elements. In order to ensure that a wall sign
is a subordinate feature of the building, rather than a predominant feature, the height
restriction was enacted.
The intent of the ordinance was to protect and enhance the streetscape along commercial
strips. When City Council considered the code amendment, unusually large buildings like
Anheuser-Busch were never mentioned as being of concern. Other specific examples
along the City's arterial streets were singled out as being a problem. The Board may take
into consideration the existence of some extraordinary and exceptional situation unique to
a particular property when determining whether or not a variance should be approved.
Certainly, the bulk and mass of the A-B building is unique in the city, as well as the 1100
acre size of their site. A 7 foot maximum height wall sign may actually look out of scale on
a building as tall and large as the A-B building, and there might not be any detriment to the
public good by allowing a larger wall sign.
The 1994 sign code changes included a 15 year amortization period for the removal of all
` signs that don't comply with the many new regulations contained in that ordinance. With
respect to the existing A-B wall signs, that means that they would have until 2009 to be
removed and replaced with conforming signs. A-B is proposing at this time to bring their
signs more into compliance with the code by replacing the large, bright letters with letters
that are smaller and considerably less bright. They could actually leave their existing signs
up for another 9 years, which could be more of a detriment to the public good then would
be the installation of smaller, less bright signs.
F
f
Appeal 2296:
--- 1113 Maple Street
--- Petitioner: David Freele, Tenant
--- Zone: NCM
--- Section--none
--- On April 13, 2000, the applicant received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
reduce the front setback requirement from 15 feet to 12 feet in rder to allow an addition.
The variance was approved with the condition that a curb cut be installed for the driveway
area. The applicant is requesting that this condition be removed since the curb in front of
the home is a "Hollywood curb", which is an acceptable drive-over curb and is the type of
curb found in front of most of the other homes on Maple Street. The Board mistakenly
thought the curb was a non-drive-over vertical curb.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: none.
--- Staff comments: None.
0
0
0
Other Business:
--- Staff will discuss with the Board a proposed code change to Section 2.14.2(H)(8) regarding
hardship variances as follows:
"... Hardship variances from the terms of Articles 3 through 4, inclusive, may be approved
or approved with conditions by the Zoning Board of Appeals where, by reason of
exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique
to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional
narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's
ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of any regulation enacted herein
would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue
hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such relief may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good
, and provided that ..."
May 11,Appeal 2294
111
320 East Mulberry L
J.
Appeal
1113 Maple r HVCf rear yard sett-,a6 �
along the alley from5 ft to 0 ft,3hd redid'the east side y4rd I
setback from 5 ft to 2 ft to allow the flat pAch root to be
removed and replaced with a row gable(40f,
MEW IN
This show�the
approximate 2 foot
setback to the east
property line.
yy t k
r1r
. f _� __ ka 't- ':i';rttk ',•F �-i r`,rY f 7 -
s;sthe flat �oafed detach ;garage" ►eny them rip -
remain � n
r. 'J:.ate, s.
Looking east along the
yam• .f�
goat along t ry. The detached garge.rcarriagr,house
'h{' rta`psS Iho it gyyis itsa it 41hWt A D soiba6k �
Q.;
1-
'7�., I� T
i '�4 �. it 111
.atirrson St.Hitt the norm
all rtav tma rna��pearts tb f r* E v r }„- ra o Fri' r aka
GllKatoa�'sataectrk �+ e r t { 7�'+fir A,
t �
*�ettl�ck
tLooking south towards the rear of the house and the west
aide of the garage,
c`� 'aMr �JS3 AS4f YID f i4t
kC1•F `lly ;`# S F
v rl
I, "` { R - L44Nlrp narih Ilydm nCriR
iThe variance would allow an individual letter sign to exceed 71
I feet in height
� - :-r - _ _ .• �'t5'1'Sefi)1tl'�i�t::�)+it*`.tariv�e'.'�;'air�rrtaaa.n�.u�s���nj;ti'jk r�EE1A
Existing signage
- e
i
omparisotm showing existing sign on south wall and
proposed sigh on south.wall. {;�., I. --•-
Rag C . r? r '• ,
x
-_ proposed Signage
1 Looking east" Rand#11
I
LrJn-king northeast from Mountain Vista Dr. etting !&scr alorgKowitain Vista Dr.
MIff
71
Looking southwest from County Road#52. i Again,looking southeast from County Road#52.
-
Aill
19
Looking northeast from North County Road#9.
Existing 19 foot�tall Budweiser sign on tho south wall.,
Ezrstin�s[jn .. = -
........ ...
Ail
tail
on
the nofth 1. i
f�p. '•`KcJ _ r4rm'1' _ rye-' 'ki- �*�..
i
,From the roof looking west. � From the roof looking west
��, s � Property line P �I y
t
"�'� e � � Looking northwest from the overpass ai Mountain Vista Dr.
Looking east towards Interstate 25 �',;. ,�____ and_]-25(Normal Lens}
r
Looking northwest from the overpass at Mountain Vista Dr.I -
and h-25 Telephoto-Lens)
Looking South from Busch Dr.
( �
Existing 10.5'tall Sutherland's sign on South College Ave.
" I
home building centers;
�1431a�lll �tEI!
Looking southwest From County road#52 on the - _---_
east side of 1-25. # a`y
Existing 12'tall tall Best Buy sign on South College Ave. h* r s it'
The variance would remove the condition that i cuib cut be
'installed for the driveway area. Previous appeal 9 2291 from April
2000 mee ing l
feet to property
The proposed addition MI line up with the north wall of • east along the front property line and the - of r
the existing home and extend to the west • home.
currently sits 12'in from the front
property
l West S'de Of th hoa5e{The propos�addition will extend 20'to the K. ' � .
East prop"line.
The End
i
.vest a id IinC up Ith the frort and rear wall of the existing slrucWro.��; _
-
Haltynw�ad
rs? #
-
�`�,
A.
City of Fort
Lookingproperty
t I II�i Ir�i. �Ayy