Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/11/2002A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday July 11, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Donahue David Lingle Andy Miscio Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Shannon made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 13, 2002, meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL NO. 2387 -- Approved. Address: 1709 West Harmony Road Petitioner: Alison Dickson, Gardner Signs ZBA July 11, 2002 Page 2 Zone: LMN Section: 3.8.7(G) (5) (7) and (8) Background: The variance would allow the existing Conoco sign at the intersection of Seneca Street and Fromme Prairie Way to be classified as a Fromme Prairie Way sign instead of a Seneca Street sign. Since the sign is currently perpendicular to Seneca Street, it would have to be reconstructed and made perpendicular to Fromme Prairie Way, and moved closer to Fromme Prairie Way, if the variance were not approved. If the variance is approved, then no other signs would be allowed on Fromme Prairie Way. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This development is in the Neighborhood Sign District. As such, this type of development is limited to only one ground sign per street for the entire development. This is a multi -building development, and two of the three buildings will be multi -tenant buildings. It is important to be able to have signage on Harmony Road instead of on Fromme Prairie Way, which is a dead-end street. The existing sign at the comer of Harmony and Seneca Street is at a 45 degree angle, and can be considered to be a Seneca Street sign, but only if the existing sign at Seneca Street and Fromme Prairie Way is considered to be a Fromme Prairie Way sign. If this is allowed, then the additional sign on Harmony Road can be installed, and it will advertise the two multi -tenant buildings. The approved PUD site plan actually showed four ground signs, but only three are proposed. Staff Comments: It is doubtful that this request qualifies as a hardship variance. Therefore, the Board must determine that the general purpose of the standard will be promoted equally well or better than would a proposal that complies with the standard. The purpose of the standard is to ensure that commercial developments of this size in the residential neighborhood sign district have only one sign per street, and that those signs are constructed in such a manner so as to avoid all the signs appearing to be along the same street in cases where multiple signs are allowed based on multiple street frontages. In this particular case, the development is allowed three monument signs since there are three street frontages. The applicant is proposing a total of only three signs, so the number of signs is not an issue. The Board must determine whether or not the location and orientation of the signs is such that the general purpose of the standard is satisfied. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property is on the comer of Harmony Road and Seneca Street, and functions as a convenience shopping center (Schrader's Country Store) Barnes referred Boardmembers to their site plans. Bames stated Sign A is an existing sign at the comer of Harmony Road and Seneca Street (considered a Harmony Road sign). Sign A is at a 45 degree angle, and is not perpendicular to either Harmony Road or Seneca ZBA July 11, 2002 Page 3 Street. Sign B is along Seneca Street. Sign C is the proposed sign which would be perpendicular to Harmony Road. Barnes noted that three separate buildings will be part of the development: Schrader's Country Store, a retail/office building, and another mixed -use building. Sign C would be located near the entrance of the center off of Harmony Road, and would be considered a Harmony Road sign. Barnes stated that because the center will include a multi -tenant building, the Applicant feels it is important to have a sign at the entrance identifying the names of the tenants. Barnes said the Applicant is only allowed to have one sign on each street. Sign A and proposed Sign C are both be considered Harmony Road signs. Barnes noted Code would allow the Applicant to have a sign on Fromme Prairie Way without a variance. Barnes stated if the Board is inclined to grant the variance, staff recommends that the Board put a condition on the approval that the Applicant could not have a sign on Fromme Prairie Way. Barnes said if the Applicant's request was denied, the Applicant would have to reconstruct and re -orientate the current Harmony Road sign (Sign A). Eames noted the purpose of the standard is to ensure that commercial developments of this size, in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, have only one sign per street. The signs are to be constructed in a manner as to avoid having all the signs appearing to be along the same street. Barnes said in this case the development is allowed three monument signs. The development has three street frontages and is allowed one sign per street: one on Harmony Road, one on Seneca Street, and one on Fromme Prairie Way. Barnes told the Board that the number of sign is not an issue. Barnes said the Board must determine whether or not the location and orientation of the signs that are existing and proposed satisfies the general purpose of the standard. Remington asked about the square footage for the three signs. Barnes replied that in the Neighborhood Sign District size is restricted on monument signs, and in this development the restriction is 40 square feet per side. Barnes noted the Applicant is not exceeding the allowable height or size. Donahue asked if the sign code has a restriction on the distance between commercial monument signs. Barnes replied that the signs needed to be 75 feet apart. Applicant Participation: Steve Schrader, Schrader Oil Company, addressed the Board. Schrader gave the history of the project. Schrader stated he owned the lot containing the convenience store. Schrader is also a partner in the retail development of the site. Schrader stated at the time of permit application for the two convenience store signs, he did not realize he was using all of his allowable sign locations for the whole development. Schrader stated currently the development has no sign for the retail center. Schrader explained his hardship. Alison Dickson, Gardner Signs, addressed the Board. Dickson stated the site plan she used to apply for the sign permits for the convenience store did not have complete information. There was a discussion held regarding the definition of convenience shopping center. Dickson was ZBA Jul) _, 2002 Page 4 unaware of the defintion as well as the Neighborhood Sign District limiting commercial signage to one sign per street frontage. Dickson felt a sign on Fromme Prairie Way was useless due to the street being a dead-end. Lingle asked the Applicants if they had considered placing the multi -tenant sign at the entrance into the shopping area off of Fromme Prairie Way. There was a discussion held regarding why this would not work for the Applicant. Board Discussion: Barnes summarized the appeal for the Board. Schrader told the Board it would be difficult to move sign B due to the massive amount of service lines. Shannon was in favor of granting the appeal. Miscio and Remington concurred. Shannon made a motion to approve appeal 2387 based on the location and orientation of the signs. Shannon referenced the staff comments, and noted the intent of the standard is to only have one sign per street, and moving Sign B would not make any difference. Shannon stated the approval of the request was not detrimental to the public good. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Lingle, Miscio, Remington, Donahue, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. Other Business Barnes noted that the 907 Mathews Street will be heard by City Council on Tuesday July 16, 2002. Barnes noted on July 23, 2002, that Boardmembers Miscio and Remington will need to attend the City Council study session to review the questionnaire. The memo that Eckman put together per the Board's request on forms of motions was discussed. Meeting adjourned at 9:23 a.m. Peter Barnes, Barnes, Zoning Administrator