Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/12/2001A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday July 12, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover David Ayraud Martin Breth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 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 May 10, 2001, meeting. Board Member Remington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Board Member Shannon abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO. 2344--Approved ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 2 of 14 Address: 801 Kimball Road Petitioner: Wayne Snyder for TUFF SHED Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(C) Back ound: The variance would reduce the required year yard setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow a new 24'x 30' detached garage to be constructed. The homes faces Kimball Road, which by definition is the legal street side lot line, rather than the front lot line. The south lot line functions as the side lot line of the property, rather than the rear lot line. The side setback requirement is only five feet, so the proposal would comply if the south lot line were defined as the side property line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a corner lot situation wherein the home faces the legal street side lot line, rather than the front lot line. Therefore, the south lot line functions as a side lot line, wherein only a five-foot setback would be required. Staff Comments: This is a typical corner lot situation. However, this is somewhat unusual in that the proposal is for a new over -sized garage, in addition to the existing two -car attached garage. Peter Barnes stated that Jenny Nuckols would be doing the slide presentation. He also stated that the Board was familiar with the corner lot situation whereby definition the legal front lot line is the shortest of the two street frontages, and has nothing to do with which way the house faces. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols stated the house does face out onto Kimball Road. Orchard Place is the legal front yard, which would be the legal corner side yard of the property. The new garage proposal would extend further than the existing garage. The proposed garage would be ten feet from the rear property line, and twenty-three feet from the side property line. Orchard Place is the legal front. The front property line is defined as the shorter of the two street frontages, making Orchard Place the legal front. In this situation it serves as the legal side yard. Applicant Participation: Wayne Synder, representative for Tuff Shed, addressed the Board. Applicant Synder did not have any additional comments. He stated that it is a situation where the legal front does not function as the front. He has maintained the ten -foot setback from the south property line. An alternative would be to go into the backyard, but he felt that would be an imposition to the west neighbor as well as destroy the backyard. ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 3 of 14 Stockover asked the Applicant if the property owners were planning on keeping the existing garage. Applicant Synder replied that the existing garage would be kept as a garage for the time being. There is a possibility that it will be remodeled in the future; however, there are no definite plans. Board Discussion: Board member Remington stated that this was a typical comer lot situation that the Board has seen before. The property would be in compliance if the property lines were defined as to the way the house is physically situated on the lot. He felt it was a corner lot hardship. Remington made a motion that appeal 2344 based on the hardship stated. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Shannon, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2345--Approved Address: 631 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Wayne Snyder for TUFF SHED Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(F)(1)(g) Background: The variance would allow a new 10' x 16' shed to be constructed in the backyard, with a roof pitch of greater than 12:12. Specifically, the variance would allow the shed to have a Dutch Gambrel (bam-style) roof that matches the roof of the home. The pitch of the roof of the existing house is greater than 12:12, and the roof pitch of the shed will match the house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property is in the Centennial School neighborhood, and the owner believes that having a shed consistent with the house would be more compatible. Staff Comments: The purpose of the standard is to attempt to ensure that new construction is architecturally compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The code allows the roof pitch of additions to match that of the existing building. However, the current wording of the code does not apply to new detached buildings. (Staff will be proposing a code change to correct this oversight). The Board may determine that this proposal is "equal to or better" than the standard by find that: (1) There is no detriment to the public good, and that (2) the proposal will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard equally well or better than would a proposal which ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 4 of 14 complies with the standard since the variance would allow the buildings on the property to be of similar architectural character. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols referenced packet information for illustrations of the proposed shed. The shed will be located in the far right comer of the lot and will be setback five feet from both the side and rear property lines. The current shed is proposed to be removed. A letter was read from Rick D. Wood, co-owner of the property, in objection to the variance request. Barnes referenced another letter from the City's Historic Preservation office regarding their support of the request. Remington asked staff if the only variance being requested is relative to the roof pitch. Barnes stated that what the Applicant had submitted complied with all setbacks. Remington asked whom should apply for the variance? He wanted to know the rules. Paul Eckman stated that it has been past practice that it has been liberal with who can apply for a variance. Eckman stated that in this case it is not either of the owners, but Tuff Shed. Eckman told the Board that jurisdiction can be obtained through an applicant, although it would not have to be all of the owners. Eckman stated that there are appeal rights to the City Council. Eckman said there are other remedies in a situation like this. If one of the co -owners does not want this to occur, it should be worked out through court or a divorce proceeding. Eckman felt it was not proper for the Board to refuse to hear this application because there is a dispute between the two owners. Applicant Participation: Wayne Synder, representative for Tuff Shed, addressed the Board. Applicant Synder wanted to point out that the removal of the old shed has gotten the blessing of Historic Preservation. Applicant Synder wanted to be consistent with the architecture of what is currently on the property. He felt a barn style shed would be more appropriate than a ranch style shed for this particular property. Board Discussion: Board member Shannon stated that the Applicant was working to be consistent with the neighborhood. Shannon was in support of the appeal. She stated that it was equal to or better than the standard, and that there would be no harm or detriment to the public. Shannon felt the only conflict was a personal relationship. Remington agreed with Shannon. He asked if the Board should be using the equal to or better than standard. Remington wanted to add that the Historic Preservation letter should be referred to as well. Remington thought the finding would be that it would protect the public interest equally well or better than a proposal that would comply. Shannon made a motion to approve appeal number 2345 because there is no detriment to the public good, and it advanced the public good. This is equal to or better than a proposal that would comply with the standard, as determined by the Historic Preservation staff which believes that the roof pitch of the shed ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 5 of 14 matched that of the existing historic home thereby helping to preserve the historic character of the property. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Shannon, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. Barnes informed the Board that a proposal for a code change would be occurring. He stated that the code right now allowed roof pitch of additions to match that of an existing building. There is a 2:12 minimum and a 12:12 maximum; however, if someone is proposing an addition to a home they can go less than 2:12 or greater than 12:12 if it matches the existing roof pitch on the house. Barnes believed that this should apply to detached buildings as well as additions. This will be proposed in the fall round of code changes. 5. APPEAL NO. 2346--Approved Address: 301 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Gary Eastman and Katherine Reid Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Olive Street from 15 feet to 8.5 feet, and would reduce the required side yard setback from the south lot line from 8 feet to 6 feet. The variances are requested in order to allow a two-story addition to the rear of the existing home. The existing home is already only 7 feet from the street side lot line along Olive Street, so the new construction along Olive Street would be setback 1.5 feet further than the existing north wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter A. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The house faces onto Whedbee Street. The north wall of the home currently sits seven feet in from the property line. The proposed addition will be eight and a half feet from the property line. It will be an additional foot and a half from what is already there. On the south property line the Applicants are proposing that this setback be six feet. The proposed height with the new addition will be twenty-four and a half feet. ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 6 of 14 Shannon asked if the addition was consistent with the existing home. Nuckols replied yes. Barnes commented that since the existing home is more than fifty years old, the Historic Preservation office has to approve any exterior alterations or additions. Remington asked if the proposed addition was following the line of the existing house. Nuckols referenced Remington to the site plan. The addition will be setback further in on the Olive side than the existing home. Nuckols explained that on the south side the addition will be setback at six feet, but the requirement is eight feet due to the overall height. In the NCM zoning district, when one exceeds eighteen feet in height, there is an additional one -foot of setback required for every two feet over that eighteen. Shannon asked what the height of the existing was, and Nuckols replied she would need to address the Applicant. Applicant Participation: Gary Eastman and Katherine Reid addressed the Board. The neighbors house to the south is setback eight feet. Applicant Eastman stated the existing height of the house is 24 1/2 feet. Applicant Reid said they have met with Historic Preservation, and they were in favor of the rear addition. The total square footage that is above the legal limit for height is twenty-five square feet. It is a triangular peak. Remington asked if the height of the addition was the same height of the existing roof. Nuckols referenced the Board to the elevations in their packet; and it appeared to be twenty-four feet. Miscio asked if the height of the addition was predicated on the recommendations of Historic Preservation. The Applicant responded that it came from an architect's design. Remington asked what the impact would be if the addition were only twenty feet. The Applicant responded that to keep it legal there were three choices: lower pitch, hip or redesign. In support of appeal: Gordon Hill, 305 Whedbee Street, showed his support of the request. He thought it would be a great addition to the neighborhood. Board Discussion: Remington questioned staff on whether a condition would be necessary for the Applicants to go through Historic Preservation. Barnes stated that Historic Preservation was an automatic sign -off in the permitting system. A permit would not be issued until Historic Preservation releases it as well. Remington stated that in his opinion there are a couple of hardships, which included the width of the lot, and existing conditions to match the roofline. He stated that not approving the variance would necessitate a change in the character of the house. Shannon agreed with Remington. Board member Pawlikowski asked about the ramp. Shannon asked if the ramp mattered. Bames responded that the ramp would matter if it were more than thirty inches above grade. If so, it would need to comply with setbacks. Bames stated that if the ramp were more than thirty inches ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 7 of 14 above grade, the Applicants would have to request a variance. Stockover asked the Applicants what the intent of the ramp was. The Applicants responded that it was for Applicant Reid's mother. It would be a handicap accessible ramp. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2346 for the hardship stated in addition to the lot width and the existing roof line on the existing building for the hardship that would create for the addition to match the existing roof line. The motion would also include the handicap accessible ramp to the level of the existing house. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Shannon, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2347--Approved with condition Address: 4603 South Timberline Road Petitioner: Allison Dickson for Gardner Signs Zone: HC Section: 5.2 (DEFINITIONS) and 3.8.7(G)(6) Background: The variance would allow a directional sign to be larger than four square feet and still not be classified as a regulated sign. Specifically, the variance would allow a First National Bank Drive -Up ATM directional sign to be fourteen square feet. The sign is proposed to be located toward the west end of the bank site, at the drive -up lane entrance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: In order to adequately communicate to customers important information (e.g. entrance, open, closed, etc.) a sign larger than four square feet is needed. This information could be placed on two or three directional signs, and a variance would not be needed as long as they were fifteen feet apart and a maximum size of four square feet. That type of arrangement could be confusing to the customer, and clutter the site more than one larger sign. Staff Comments: The code would allow this property to have two freestanding signs: one on Harmony and one on Timberline. At this time, the sign package for the bank does not propose any freestanding sign on Timberline. If the Board moves to grant this variance, perhaps a condition that no freestanding sign could be erected on Timberline would be appropriate. Such a condition would result in ensuring that the property will have no more than two freestanding signs. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The code would allow the property to have two freestanding signs. The Applicant could have one along Timberline and one along ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 8 of 14 Harmony. The Applicant is proposing that no freestanding sign will exist on Timberline. Nuckols referenced the Board to packet information for illustrations. Proposed signage will be located on west side of entrance. The sign would be three feet, four inches, one foot, ten inches wide, and the sign face two feet, four inches. Applicant Participation: Allison Dickson, representative for Gardner Signs, addressed the Board. The proposed bank has similar signage at the Boardwalk drive -up. The Applicant has found that this works well for the bank due to less clutter. The Applicant would like to be consistent with what was done at the Boardwalk drive -up. Shannon asked the size of the Boardwalk sign. Applicant Dickson replied that it is approximately three-foot by four foot, about twelve square feet. The difference in this sign is that the bank is adopting a new shape. It will have a decorative flange around each side. Shannon asked if that increased the square footage. Dickson replied that it does. Shannon wondered if that was essential. The Applicant responded that it was not essential but attractive. Discussion was held regarding difference in square footage with or without the decorative flange. Nuckols clarified that the Applicant is not proposing a sign on Timberline, but on Harmony. In support of appeal: Fred Jacobs, director of marketing for First National Bank addressed the Board. He stated that the bank wanted to be consistent with their signage package and provide clarity for their customers as well as consideration for the other customers of the shopping center. Stockover asked if there are any other directional signs on the property. Mr. Jacobs stated that other directional signage would be used for other services that the bank offers. Board Discussion: Shannon felt it was important to have directional signage. Remington asked how many square feet would the sign be for Timberline Road. Nuckols responded it would depend on the sign allowance. Barnes responded that the sign could be rather large because it is not in the neighborhood sign district. It could be possibly 90 square feet per side, if allowed by sign allowance. The proposed sign would be smaller than what would be allowed on Timberline. Remington was concerned that the proposed sign would exist in addition to anything else. He was more in favor of restricting the sign on Timberline. Miscio was in favor of the directional signs. Miscio felt there was a difference in logo signs and directional signs. Stockover was in favor of going along with staff comments and putting a restriction on the Timberline sign. ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 9 of 14 Miscio asked the Applicant if there was any intent to putting additional signs on Timberline. The Applicant responded no and felt there was some confusion. She understood that the bank was not allowed to place any freestanding signs in addition to what exists there now. Bames responded that along Harmony the developer has constructed freestanding signs with blank panels and no signage. The developer has put in another permanent sign, although none exist on Timberline. Each lot is allowed a sign on the street. Remington asked if the bank was planning to put signage on Harmony. The Applicant did not know she could put any additional freestanding signs, and the reason for this request is to call it an oversize directional. If the Applicant does have the ability to put an additional sign, the Applicant would call it the additional sign. Barnes stated the request was to allow the directional sign to be larger than four square feet. If they are larger than four square feet, they count as a regulated freestanding sign. It would take place of the sign on Timberline Road that would otherwise be allowed. Fred Jacobs returned to the podium. He has contacted the developer in regards to using the developer's signs. Jacobs wanted clarity in a concise manner. Miscio stated that if the variance were approved, the Applicant would be precluded from having other signage on Timberline. The Applicant thought they were precluded from the beginning. Jacobs thought the Timberline signage would be of more value. Shannon asked that if they have a sign on the developer's sign, would it be part of the bank's signage allowance. Barnes said it comes off the allowance for whatever lot that that sign is on. Miscio asked if a sign would be on the building itself with the logo, and if it would be included in their allowance. The Applicant stated that a permit has already been received for the entire sign package except for this one item. Miscio asked if the intent was to have more signage. The Applicant stated no. Miscio asked the Applicant if they were precluded from having any other signs at this time, would it be an issue. Jacobs stated that it is not an issue because it was not planned. Jacobs would like to have some discussion on the Timberline side relevant to rules about promotional signage. Barnes suggested the Applicant could have a choice. If the Board granted the variance (with a condition that thew new sign take the place of the Timberline sign), then the Applicant has a choice. They can either put directional signage that complies with code, and it would be an unregulated sign, which would allow the Applicant to put a sign on Timberline (assuming they have sign allowance). The Applicant needed to choose which would be more beneficial. Stockover asked if a condition were put on it, would the Applicant be able to come back and ask for a variance on the Timberline sign. Barnes stated yes. Stockover said that he would suggest just such a plan. Miscio asked how oversized a sign is before it complies. The Applicant stated that compliance is four square feet, but the proposed sign is fourteen square feet. Shannon made a motion to approve appeal number 2347 to allow a directional sign with the stipulation that there will be no freestanding sign erected on Timberline without another ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 10 of 14 variance. The directional is equal to or better than the sign on Timberline because it eliminates clutter and helps the public get to where they need to go. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Shannon, and Miscio. Nays: Remington. APPEAL NO. 2348--Approved Address: 1029 West Oak Street Petitioner: Tidhar Sadeh Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Back ound: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from five feet to two feet in order to allow the existing detached garage to be removed and replaced with a new one in the same location. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing garage is old and in disrepair, and is not tall enough to get a pick-up truck in. The owner desires to demolish the existing one and replace it with a new one of the same size, except taller. There is an existing shared driveway that splits the property line, so moving the new garage over to comply with the setback would make it difficult to access or park out in front. Staff Comments: A letter read was read from Cary R. Album, III, 1035 West Oak Street, in support of the appeal. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The garage is located to the west and rear of the home. It sits in two feet from the west property line. The Applicant would like to remove this building and reconstruct in the same location. Applicant Participation: Tidhar Sadeh addressed the Board. Did not have any additional information. Shannon did not understand why it would be a problem to comply. Applicant Sadeh explained that currently there is a shared driveway. He would have to move over three to four feet into the yard making him move a fence and remove a tree. Stockover asked how much taller the Applicant intended to make the garage. The Applicant stated he has not drawn out the plans, but no taller than three to four feet than what it is currently. The footprint of the garage would be remain the same. ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 11 of 14 Board Discussion: Remington asked if the existing condition would be considered a hardship. Barnes mentioned that the Board has used topography in the past and the Applicant pointed out the tree issue. This property is classified as a non -conforming building. If the building were damaged or destroyed by natural causes, then it could be reconstructed to the same size and location without a variance. If destroyed by natural causes it could be rebuilt in the same size and location and could be taller. The problem is that it is existing. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2348 for the hardship of a narrow lot and topography as indicated with the tree and location of the driveway. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Shannon, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. 8. APPEAL NO. 2349--Approved with condition Address: 3227 South Timberline Road Petitioner: Shaw Sign and Awning Zone: E Section: 3.8.7(G)(6), 3.8.7(G)(7) Background: The variance would allow two ground signs along Timberline Road instead of the one allowed, and would allow the one at the south end of the property to be located closer to Vermont Drive than Timberline Road, while still being classified as a Timberline Road sign. The proposed ground sign at the north end of the property would consist of fifteen square feet of individual letters applied to the curved retaining wall, instead of placing the sign on the north side of the drive -up canopy. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The owner believes that placing letters on the retaining wall would be aesthetically more pleasing and compatible to the property owners to the north than would be a lighted cabinet on the north side of the canopy building. The ground sign at the south end of the lot is proposed to be perpendicular to Timberline Road. Such an orientation requires that the sign be located closer to Timberline than to Vermont Drive. However, this project was required to dedicate substantial right-of-way to the City. Therefore, the only way that the south sign can be closer to Timberline is if it were moved about forty feet north. This moves it away from the entrance and closer to the properties to the north. Staff Comments: ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 12 of 14 The part of the variance to allow the south sign to be closer to Vermont than to Timberline can be considered a hardship variance due to the unusual depth of the right-of-way that the owner had to dedicate to the City. The part of the variance to allow the letters on the retaining wall is a request that the Board might determine to meet the "equal to or better than" standard. If so, the Board must make specific findings such as: (1) there is no detriment to the public good, and (2) the proposal as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested because: (a) the purpose of limiting the number of ground signs along a street to one per property is to reduce sign clutter, and the placement of the small letters on the low wall will present less of a visual clutter than would the placement of lighted cabinet signs on the fascia of the drive -up canopy. Signs would be permitted on the canopy, and the canopy itself would become a freestanding sign. If the Board desires to grant the variance, a condition of not allowing any signs on the canopy structure would be appropriate. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols referred the board members to their packet information. Barnes stated that both signs are for the variance request. The sign on the retaining wall is considered a Timberline Road sign. Where they want to place the other one perpendicular to Timberline Road makes that a second Timberline Road sign. The sign would be considered a Timberline sign because it is adjacent to and perpendicular to Timberline. Remington asked staff if there would be a Vermont sign. Nuckols replied that the Applicant is wanting to consider the sign a Timberline sign rather than a Vermont sign, so the Applicant could have the sign faces going north and south. If it were a Vermont sign, the faces would be going east and west. Shannon asked if Vermont was a residential street. Nuckols stated that there was residential as well as commercial along Vermont. Applicant Participation: James Laffler, representative for Shaw Sign and Awning, addressed the Board. Home State Bank is not requesting a Vermont sign in lieu of the corner sign on Timberline. Home State Bank is required to have a huge setback, approximately forty feet from the curb, and Vermont Street is about eight feet. In the code you base your setback and placement of signage dependent on street right-of-way line. Typically it is close to the curb. In this case the curb is far forward due to the additional right of way. It creates a situation where as per code it would technically be closer to Vermont than to Timberline because of right of way. They are asking to adjust the placement to where it doesn't have to go forty feet to the north. A Vermont sign would not be done. Applicant believed there was a hardship due to the huge right-of-way. N iscio asked if there would be a building logo. The Applicant stated yes and that there was a series of signage per code proposed for the building. The signs would be image signs. The Applicant presented the signage package. Jenny read sections from the sign code for clarification. They will have two ground signs on Timberline Road. ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 13 of 14 Miscio tried to understand the value of a Timberline sign versus a Vermont sign. The sign would be a multi -tenant sign, not a directory sign. In support of appeal: Harry Deveraux, executive vice-president of Home State Bank, addressed the Board and showed his support for the appeal. Reese Christensen addressed the Board. He owns the property adjacent to this. He wanted to point out that he has dedicated the right of way to the City and as a result it created a hardship. An alternative to the retaining wall sign would be to put it on the canopy. Christensen felt the proposal was better than what would be allowed. Board Discussion: Remington was in favor of the appeal. He thought the north side would definitely fall under the equal to or better than standard to have the retaining wall instead of a lighted cabinet sign. The situation on the south side with the dedicated right-of-way creates an unusual hardship for that sign. Stockover told the Board that if a motion were made, it needed to be specific why it is better than. In his opinion it is the lighting. The Applicant re -addressed the Board concerning the north sign. The retaining wall is an architectural feature rather than a freestanding structure. Remington asked what the allowable square footage on Timberline would be for this property. Barnes stated that Timberline has a lot of sign allowance. Remington felt the fifteen square feet of letters had to be less than what would be allowed on Timberline. Barnes referenced the staff comments. If signage were put on the canopy, it would basically look like a freestanding sign. Barnes stated that the Applicant is proposing to put the signs on the retaining wall instead of the canopy. If the variance is not approved and the Applicant wants that exposure for southbound traffic, then they could put them on the canopy without a variance. Remington suggested the Board use the equal to or better than standard. Bames suggested the Board also find that there is an unusual hardship situation with the right-of-way. Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2349. Remington concurred with the staff comments with regards to the south sign. He felt a hardship existed due to the unusual size of the right-of-way that had to be dedicated to the City. In terms of the south and north sign, he felt the equal to or better than standard applies. The variance is not a detriment to the public good, and it is outlined in the staff comments how it advances the public interest because it reduces the sign clutter along Timberline. The letters along the north sign are smaller and less obtrusive than would be allowed in a lighted cabinet sign. Remington put a condition on his motion that no additional further signage be allowed on the canopy and no freestanding sign on Vermont on this lot. Shannon seconded the motion. ZBA July 12, 2001 Page 14 of 14 Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Shannon, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. 9. Other Business Barnes wanted to alert the Board, effective July 1, 2001, that builders provide the City with Improvement Location Certificates prior to them being issued a certificate of occupancy to verify the required setbacks are met. The Board may start seeing requests from builders that are already done for setback variances. A discussion was held regarding what a hardship would be in such an instance. Meeting adjourned at 10: 30 a.m. r1k r k� William Stocko er, Chairperson 190-� 6 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator