Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/14/2002A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday February 14, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth 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 Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the January 10, 2002, meeting. Board Member Miscio seconded the motion. Board Member Lingle had a connection. Lingle noted on the last paragraph under Staff Comments the minutes stated, "Donahue asked" and the minutes should have stated "Lingle asked". The correction was noted and was changed. The motion passed with Board Member Breth abstaining. ZBA Fe. .ary l4, 2002 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2367 - Approved with conditions. Address: 4606 South Mason Street Petitioner: Bruce Hindle for Gordon Signs Zone: HC Section: 3.8.7 (I) Background: The variance would allow a sign that is mounted at an angle between two building walls (that are at right angles) to be considered a flush wall sign, even though it is more than 12 inches from the wall surface to which the sign is mounted. The sign would advertise "Soundtrack." Specifically, a 57 square foot sign would be located at an angle between the two walls at the southwest comer of the building. A similar variance was approved in 1999 to allow the "Soundtrack" sign that is currently at the northeast corner of the building. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter A. Staff Comments: Copies of the 1999 variance were included in the Board packets for reference. If a hardship standard is found to not apply in this case, the Board would have to determine that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard. The Board would have to determine that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the standard to limit the projection of a wall sign to 12 inches is primarily one of aesthetics. The code classifies a sign that is more than 12 inches from the wall as a projecting wall sign. Such signs are usually found on buildings that are close to or abutting the property line along a street. Such buildings are generally in the downtown area. Since projecting wall signs generally project over a public sidewalk, and are quite close to the street, the regulations that apply to such signs with respect to size are more restrictive than for wall signs. For instance, the maximum size of a projecting wall sign is 12 square feet, but the size of a flushwall sign on the same building would only be limited by the amount of sign allowance that the building has. Projecting wall signs are very visible from the street, and therefore the size limitation is intended to ensure that such signs do not detract from the appearance of the streetscape of the city. The Board may find that the proposed sign promotes the purpose of the standard since it (1) does not project from the furthest exterior walls of the building, (2) does not project over any public sidewalk, and (3) it is not in close proximity to a public street. The Board may find that the proposal is equal to or better than a proposal that complies with the Code since (1) one sign would replace the 2 existing signs, and (2) the square footage of the one proposed sign would be less than the square footage of the 2 existing signs. ZB. _-,ebruary 14, 2002 Page 3 Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The Appellant requested a variance to the projecting wall sign ordinance. The Appellant wanted to remove the two existing Soundtrack signs and proposed to place a new sign at a forty-five degree angle at the south and west wall of the building. In 1999, representatives for Soundtrack came before the Board to request a similar variance, which was granted. Barnes told the Board they may want to consider the request under the equal to or better than standard as opposed to the hardship standard. Bames stated the Board would have to determine that the variance request promotes the purpose of the ordinance. Barnes noted the difference between a projecting wall sign and a flush wall sign. The projecting wall sign ordinance is intended to regulate signs that project perpendicular from an exterior wall of a building. Flush wall signs are mounted flush against the wall plane of a building. Signs projecting more than 12 inches from an exterior wall are considered projecting wall signs and are limited in size. Barnes stated that as long as a business has enough sign allowance, the signs are not regulated in terms of length, but in maximum height or cabinet. Remington asked if staff knew the square footage of the two existing signs. Barnes stated that he believed the total was around 80 square feet, and the proposed sign was 57 square feet. Lopez noted that the proposed sign would face the parking lot, and would not be seen from the public right-of-way. Remington asked if the 1999 variance approval included a condition that no new signs could be placed without Soundtrack representatives coming before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Barnes responded that was correct. Applicant Participation: Steve Yule, 2930 West 9th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, on behalf of Soundtrack, addressed the Board. Yule believed the proposed sign not to be a flush wall sign or a projecting sign. Yule clarified that the proposed sign would not be projected perpendicular to the building. Yule presented the Board with material on the variance that was approved in 1999. Applicant Yule noted that when Soundtrack built the auto install building, the building disrupted the visibility of the two existing Soundtrack signs. Yule felt by eliminating two signs Soundtrack would better meet the purpose of the Code. Board Discussion: Breth expressed that he did not have any hesitation in approving the variance request. Shannon noted that she appreciated good signage. Remington was concerned with the amount of signage marking Soundtrack, although he felt the elimination of one sign and reduction in square footage was a positive change. Remington noted that if the Board were to approve the variance request, that a condition be placed on the variance. The condition would require Soundtrack representatives to reappear before the Zoning Board of Appeals with any sign changes. Remington felt the request should be decided under the equal to or better than standard. ZBA Ft ,ary 14, 2002 Page 4 Shannon asked staff if Soundtrack was above their sign allowance. Barnes responded that Soundtrack was in compliance with their sign allowance. Barnes noted that Soundtrack would be farther away from their maximum sign allowance if the variance request were approved. Stockover told the Board he was more inclined to consider the request under the equal to or better than standard and would also like the uniqueness of the building noted. Shannon made a motion to approve appeal 2367 on the basis of the equal to or better than standard for the following reasons: (1) the proposed sign would have less square footage (2) the reduction in overall signage (3) the sign is not in close proximity to a public street and therefore does not interfere with the public sidewalk and (4) the unique architecture of the building. Miscio seconded the motion. Barnes clarified the use of the equal to or better than standard and the procedure the Board would need to use. Shannon amended her motion to say that one sign would replace the two existing signs, and the square footage of the proposed sign would be less than the two existing signs. Therefore, the request would be considered under the equal to or better than standard, and approval of the request is not detrimental to the public good. Stockover asked Shannon if she would consider including the uniquess of the building into her motion. Paul Eckman stated the uniqueness of the building did not need to be included into the motion because it would be considered a hardship test. Shannon asked if she could include both a hardship and the equal to or better than standard in her motion. Eckman stated that she could, but it was not necessary. Shannon stated she would like to because she felt it would limit others in terms of setting a precedent. Miscio seconded the amended motion. Remington asked Shannon if she would be interested in putting a condition on the motion concerning future signage. Breth responded that since Soundtrack is under their sign allowance that the Board could not place a limit on future signage. Remington stated that the Board did so on the previous 1999 variance request. Barnes told the Board it would be up to them to determine if conditions should be placed. Shannon asked if Remington wanted her to place a condition on her motion. Remington stated that he wanted the same condition (any future sign changes and Soundtrack representatives would need to come before the Board for approval) to be placed on the motion that was placed on the variance request in 1999. Shannon amended her motion to include the condition that any new additional proposed signage for the Soundtrack building would need to obtain approval from the Board. Miscio seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Miscio, Breth, Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Shannon, and Remington. Nays: None. ZB,. iebruary 14, 2002 Page 5 4. APPEAL NO. 2368 - Tabled to the March 21, 2002 meeting for further information. Address: 824 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Zone: NCM Section: 4.7 (E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in order to allow a 480 square foot addition to the west side of the existing detached garage. The existing garage is already located at a setback of 1.5 feet from the lot line. The proposed addition will line up with existing north wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing garage building is small, and is already nonconforming. The new wall will line up with what already exists. The existing home on the lot is located to the rear of the 190 foot deep lot, and is already much closer to the rear garage than all other homes in the neighborhood. It is the only lot on which the home is located at the rear. Moving the garage over an additional 3.5 feet will further "block" the rear of the home. Staff Comments Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. Lopez noted that the 560 square foot house is located towards the back of the lot, and behind the house is a small side loaded garage. Lopez showed the proposed location to bring the garage up to the maximum 800 square feet that is permitted in the NCM zoning district for an accessory structure. The garage will remain an accessory structure. Lingle asked if there were any proposed elevations for the garage. Barnes stated the Applicant did not have elevations drawing but could address the issue when he addressed the Board. Lingle asked staff when properties have limited access on one side does the City require maintenance easements or temporary construction easements for the project to be completed. Bames responded that there is no City Code requirement regarding those types of easements, even for new residential construction. Applicant Participation: Dennis Sovick addressed the Board. Sovick will be building the garage on this property. Sovick stated that the garage would match the roofline of the house. Sovick noted that the garage will be low -profile, and stated the garage will remain side loaded. Donahue asked what the roofline would look like. Sovick responded that the roofline would be a hip roof that matches the house or a low -profile gable. ZB A F , . uary 14, 2002 Page 6 Shannon expressed that 800 square feet seemed to be fairly large for a garage and asked about the intended use. Sovick responded that the intended use would be a three -car garage. Breth had questions regarding the way the gable would face. Sovick responded that the intention was to keep the existing walls and tear -off the roof to run a gable across the entire garage. Breth stated the roofline would then be slightly higher than what is existing due to a span difference. Sovick stated this was true. Breth questioned the Applicant regarding drainage. Sovick informed the Board that he and his client would submit for a building permit to build a house on the property as well. Sovick noted there will be an engineered drainage plan for the entire lot and the City Stormwater Department will also address the drainage issue. Lingle was concerned with the future maintenance of the north. Sovick stated he has discussed this with his client. The proposal is to take down the fence and reassemble it in a way to create sections that could easily come down for maintenance, although Sovick intends to keep the maintenance low on the north side. Lingle asked if there would be a fire -rated wall. Sovick responded yes. Miscio asked the Applicant what the total square footage of the garage would be. Sovick replied that the total would be 800 square feet. Shannon noted according to the site plan submitted, the garage will be massive compared to the existing house. Shannon asked if the proposed new home will happen, and where it would be located on the lot. Sovick replied the new home will be directionally consistent (located toward the street) with the other properties on the street. Sovick told the Board that the existing house will remain, a change of use will be applied for, and it will be converted into a studio or a shop. Shannon asked if the proposed new house would definitely happen or not. Sovick responded that he has every intention to submit for a building permit and build the proposed new home. Remington asked staff if three structures were allowed on a property according to Code. Barnes replied that according to Code, there is not limit on the number of structures that can be located on a property. Barnes stated that in this particular zoning district, the square footage of the lot has to be at least twice as large as the floor area of all the buildings on the property. Miscio asked the Applicant if the only access from the garage was from the alley. Sovick stated that was correct. Barnes noted to the Board that since architectural elevations were not available at the meeting and since questions remained regarding the design the Board has the following options: (1) require the Applicant to submit elevation drawings or (2) put conditions on the variance concerning maximum roof pitch, maximum building height as comparable to what is existing. Board Discussion Shannon would like to see elevation drawings and she is also concerned with the dominance of the garage over the existing house. Lingle agreed with Shannon regarding requiring the ZBr . ebruary 14, 2002 Page 7 Applicant to submit elevation drawings. Lingle also requested that the Applicant bring a site plan with the proposed new home footprint so the Board would be able to see the entire development. Lingle expressed that the Applicant's hardship may not be valid due to the relationship of the garage and the proposed new home. Miscio asked staff if the Board did not grant the variance, could the garage addition be done if setback requirements were met. Barnes stated yes. Miscio then asked how many feet the garage addition would have to be from the sideyard. Barnes stated that it would have to be five feet from the sideyard and five feet from the rear lot line. Barnes noted some issues regarding having a side -loaded garage. Breth would like to see the dimensions of the existing and proposed buildings. Sovick stated the dimensions on the existing garage are 12x24. Sovick noted that if the Board did not grant the request, a five-foot setback will be maintained, and the garage will be pulled up further onto the property. Sovick told the Board he had no intention of exceeding the current roof pitch. Breth noted it still would be slightly higher due to a span difference. There was a discussion held regarding back-up requirements required by Code. Stockover asked the Applicant if he has considered tearing down the garage and creating a conforming, back -loaded garage. Sovick responded that he has not due to the garage being so close to the property line. The closeness aids the Applicant in terms of useable space. Sovick felt there was an advantage to having a side -loaded garage. Breth stated that he did not like garage doors facing alleys for security reasons. Breth stated the Applicant needed to address the roof height and he would like to see a proposed plan for a back- up strip. Stockover said the Applicant was trying to do too much in a small area. Stockover felt a three - car garage was out of character for the neighborhood. Stockover stated he did not see any hardship that could not be overcome and would like to see the Applicant explore other design configurations. Sovick replied that a three -car garage would be built because his client wants a three -car garage. Sovick noted that it could be done without a variance, but with a different configuration. Shannon made a motion to table appeal 2368 until the Applicant submits elevations, site plan with measurements to include the proposed home and alternative designs. Breth seconded the motion. Barnes informed the Applicant that he could either withdraw the appeal or return to the next meeting with additional drawings (to include driveway configurations showing the back up). Barnes told the Applicant that he would be responsible to convince the Board that his proposal is equal to or better than the standard in addition to pursing a hardship variance. Sovick replied that he would have to confer with his client. M ZBA Fe, teary 14, 2002 Page 8 Rollcall: Yeas: Miscio, Breth, Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Shannon and Remington. Nays: None. APPEAL NO. 2369 - Approved. Address: 2101 Clydesdale Drive Petitioner: Gary Woolridge Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(C) Back rg ound: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the south lot line from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to allow a 16-foot addition to the south side of the house. There is currently a 10- foot sunroom addition on the south side of the home, which will be demolished. The new addition will extend 6 feet further to the south than the existing sunroom. Because this is a comer lot, the south lot line is classified as the rear lot line, even though the south side really functions as a side yard. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a comer lot, wherein the legal rear lot line actually functions as a side lot line. The requested setback does comply with the minimum required for a side yard setback. The Board has heard this type of variance request regarding comer lots numerous times. Staff Comments Breth noted that he might have a potential conflict of interest for Appeal 2369. Breth designed the house for the property over twenty years ago and he has not had any contact with the contractor or property owner since that time. Eckman did not see a financial interest or that Breth would benefit or suffer a detriment different than anyone else in the community if Breth voted on the variance request, meaning a conflict does not exist. Eckman stated if Breth felt he was biased, he could recuse himself. Breth decided to remain a part of the Board. This is a typical comer lot situation that the Board deals with from time to time. Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is a corner lot, and the house faces Clydesdale Drive, although the front property line faces East Stuart Street. The property line opposite East Stuart Street is the rear property line that normally requires a 15-foot setback. Lopez noted that the Applicant is going to remove the sunroom on the rear, and would add onto the original house. Lopez noted a discrepancy on the site plan that was submitted by the Applicant. The proposed addition will not encroach into the easement. ZB,..-ebruary 14, 2002 Page 9 Lingle asked how staff determined which side would function as the front property line. Lopez responded that the Code considers the legal front property line to be the property line with the least amount of street frontage. Applicant Participation: Gary Woolidge addressed the Board. Woolridge commented on the discrepancy of the site plan. The addition will be a 16 x 24 foot addition and the roofline will conform to the existing house. Shannon asked if the Applicant had any elevations. Woolridge responded that he did not but the addition will maintain the current characteristics of the existing house with a couple of exceptions. Miscio asked what the purpose of the six-foot easement was for. Barnes responded that the easements are either utility easements or drainage easements. Miscio wanted to make sure the Applicant would not be building on the easements. The Applicant responded that he would not be building on the easements, and wanted to be two feet further in than the easement. Board Discussion: Remington felt the request was a standard corner lot situation. Remington made a motion to } approve appeal number 2369 based on the petitioner's statement of hardship. Shannon seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Miscio, Breth, Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Shannon and Remington. Nays: None. 6. Other Business Remington asked staff if there were any code changes that could be made regarding corner lot situtations. Barnes stated that he could add the concern to the list of code changes. Barnes noted that in the past, the Board has decided to deal with corner lot situtations on a case -by -case basis. Election of Officers Shannon nominated Steve Remington as chairperson. Breth seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Miscio, Breth, Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Shannon and Remington. Nays: None. Breth nominated Andy Miscio as the vice chairperson. Shannon seconded the motion. ZBA Fe. _ ary 14, 2002 Page 10 Rollcall: Yeas: Miscio, Breth, Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Shannon and Remington. Nays: None. Bames remined the Board that the March meeting will be held March 21, 2002. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Petitioner's Letter A January 17, 2002 Our 98" Year Ft. Collins, Colorado Board of Adjustment ......... .... Re: Soundtrack 4606 S. Mason 01 N Gordon Sidra AVisual Products Company 2930 West 9th Avenue PO. Box 40311 Denver, CO 80204-0311 303-629-6121 303-629-1024 Fax We are requesting a variance to allow a sign that is not mounted flat to a wall. There are currently two wall -mounted signs on the South and West walls. They are in need of repair. With the addition of the Auto Install Building just Southwest of the retail store, Soundtrack only needs one sign facing Southwest. A sign at an angle allows them to only use one sign to reach traffic. A variance for a similar sign was granted for the Northeast side of the store. This proposal would allow a similar sign on the Southwest, reduce the signage area and number of signs on the building. Sincerely, I �C!17 W �,� �k Steve Youel SY/mm Colorado Offices: Denver / Colorado Springs / Longmont / Pueblo • Wyoming Offices: Cheyenne / Casper / Rock Springs