HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/10/2001A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday May 10, 2001, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins.
:i\I\N�7�Id�l:]_ iC)19.7:1.`]:01M
David Ayraud
Martin Breth
Andy Miscio
Thad Pawlikowski
Steve Remington
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
IR ITZ 4 ITr1iTRf1
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Jenny Nucko Is, 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 Ayraud to approve the minutes from the April 12, 2001,
meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with
Board Member Pawlikowski abstaining.
ZB A
May 10, 2001
Page 2
3. APPEAL NO. 2336--Approved
Address:
2451 South Taft Hill Road
Petitioner:
Zane Dover for Lite Rite Signs
Zone:
NC
Section:
3.8.7(E)(4), 3.8.7(A)(3)(b)(1)
Background:
The variance would allow the existing nonconforming "Conoco price sign" to be structurally
remodeled without having to bring the sign into conformance. Specifically, the variance would
allow the 36 square foot per face price sign module to be removed and replaced with a smaller
23.86 square foot per face "Conoco price sign" without having to lower the overall height of the
sign structure to 6 feet from its current 15 foot height (the new height will be 14 feet 9 inches).
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached petitioner's letter A. In addition, the sign will be made more conforming than
it is now.
Staff Comments:
This appeal should be considered under the "equal to or better than standard" since it would be
difficult to qualify as a hardhip variance. If the Board is inclined to grant the variance, specific
findings must be stated as to how the proposal satisfies the "equal to or better than" standard.
For instance the Board may find that the variance for the sign replacement: (1) Would not be
detrimental to the public good, and (2) The variance advances and protects 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 overall purpose of the standard is to ensure that nonconforming signs are removed by
2009, and that such signs are not made more nonconforming. (b) The existing nonconforming
sign can remain as is until 2009 or be remodeled to bring the sign into conformity at an earlier
date. The proposed remodel will not bring the sign into conformity, but will bring it closer to
conformity. Therefore, the proposal is better than leaving the sign as is for another 8 years. If
the variance is approved, the Board should put a condition on it that the sign must still be
brought into compliance in 2009.
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. It is in the Neighborhood Residential
sign district. It is also located in a neighborhood service center where zoning allows primary and
secondary ground signs. This sign is considered to be the secondary sign. Secondary signs can
be up to 32 square feet per face, but limited to six feet in overall height. Peter Barnes gave an
explaination of Code requirements. The Sign Code was originally adopted in 1971 but a new
Sign Code was adopted in 1994. City Council established a fifteen year amortization period
when the 1994 sign code was adopted. City Council is requiring by the year 2009 all existing
signage that is nonconforming be brought into compliance with the 1994 standards, although
ZB A
May 10, 2001
Page 3
some exceptions were made. An example was given regarding changing the sign face without
any structural changes. Certain circumstances do trigger the need to bring signs into compliance
with the 1994 sign code, such as change of ownership of a business or structural changes. This
appeal would be considered a structural alteration due to the fact that the Applicant is putting a
new cabinet on top of the base. The Applicant requested that the sign be structurally altered
without having to bring the sign into compliance. Staff believed this would not qualify as a
hardship variance and recommended to the Board that if approved, it should not be a permanent
variance.
Applicant Participation:
Zane Dover, representative for Lite Rite Signs, addressed the Board. He stated that no
replacement parts for the current sign were in existence. The face plastic is rapidly deteoriating.
The Applicant proposed to put up a smaller Conoco logo sign. Board Member Remington asked
the Applicant if he was proposing to request a waiver of the 2009 Sign Code compliance
requirement. The Applicant stated he was not. He was only asking to replace the sign with a new
style and materials. Board Member Breth asked Applicant Dover if any modifications were
going to happen with the base of the sign. The Applicant stated no. Board Member Ayruad
asked Applicant Dover if the intention was to tear down the sign in 2009. Applicant Dover
stated yes.
Barnes clarified the total square footage of the sign. The sign will be approximately the same
1 size, possibly one square foot less, and three inches shorter than the existing. The drawing given
was not to scale.
Board Discussion:
Breth pointed out that he has driven down Taft Hill Road and tried to find the sign many times.
The sign is not easy to see due to the proximity of Taft Hill Road and heavy traffic. Breth was in
favor of keeping the sign. Secondly, Breth felt the new sign had less square footage, and less
mass because the new Conoco logo does not have the background that the old Conoco logo had.
Ayraud stated the options are to keep the sign how it is (nonconforming), or approve it as
nonconforming, although smaller and more in compliance with code. Stockover asked how the
Board was going to make a motion that is equal to or better than when the Code says in order to
change something it needs to conform. Ayraud believed this particular code allows the sign to
remain until 2009. Their choice would be to keep the sign until 2009 or make it conform by
compliance. Remington wanted to put a condition on the appeal that in the year of 2009 the
Applicant would have to comply with Sign Code. Remington felt that if the variance were
permanent, it would not meet the equal to or better than standard.
Stockover questioned staff regarding Code stating that if a sign needed repair, does it need to be
brought into compliance. Barnes stated that compliance is required if structural changes are to be
made. Stockover wanted the motion to include that no repair parts are available.
ZB A
May 10, 2001
Page 4
Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2336 with the condition that the sign must
be brought into compliance in 2009. The motion was made under the equal to or better than
standard with findings found in the staff report numbers 1, 2, A and B. The motion also included
the situation with the unavailable parts to repair the sign. Ayraud seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Remington and Stockover.
Nays: None.
4. APPEAL NO. 2337--Approved
Address:
825 1/2 Remington Street
Petitioner:
Marc Teets, for owner
Zone:
NCB
Section:
4.8(D)(1)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required lot area from 5000 square feet to 2000 square feet. The
variance is requested in order to change the nonconforming building status of the home at 825
1/2 Remington from an illegal nonconforming building to a legal nonconforming building. This
would allow the home to be reconstructed to its current size and location in the event that it
should be damaged or destroyed by a calamity. No new construction is associated with this
request.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
This lot originally contained 7000 square feet of lot area. Two homes were constructed on the
original lot in 1921. At that time, the 7000 square foot lot area was adequate to allow two homes
on one lot. In 1979, the owner of the lot sold off the front house and 5000 square feet of lot area
with it. This lot split did not comply with the Code in effect at that time since 6000 square feet
of lot area per home was required. This lot split caused both homes to become nonconforming
buildings. The Code has been changed since the lot split occurred, and now only 5000 square
feet of lot area is required. Therefore, the front home is now a legal conforming building.
However, the rear home, on its 2000 square foot lot is still an illegal, nonconforming building.
In the event that the rear home is destroyed, the Code would not allow it to be rebuilt. Since the
two homes were legally constructed in 1921, the existence of two homes should continue to be
allowed. This can only be assured if the rear building is classified as a legal nonconforming
building, which can only happen if a variance is approved.
Staff Comments:
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The house on 825 1/2 Remington Street
is adjacent to a parking lot. Barnes explained the Code requirements for nonconforming
buildings. The rear house is on a 2000 square foot lot and it is considered an illegal building.
The Code does have a section that deals with nonconforming buildings and how they are treated
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 5
(add-ons, reconstruct in the event of calamity, etc). This building could not be reconstructed
because it is an illegal building, and would have to be removed from the site. The owner is
wanting to sell the property and they are trying to get this situation straightened, so that in the
event the house were to be subject of a calamity, it would be allowed to be reconstructed. When
both buildings were constructed in the early 20s, the City of Fort Collins did not have a zoning
ordinance. The first zoning ordinance was adopted in 1929. From 1929 through 1965 the zone
that this property was in would have always required at least a 3000 square foot minimum lot
size. At no point in history, as long as the City of Fort Collins had a zoning code, has a 2000
square foot lot size been permissible. When the lot was split up in 1979, Code required 6000
square feet of lot area per building. In 1969 the house in front became a legal nonconforming
building (5000 square foot lot). It was classified as legal nonconforming because the 5000
square foot lot size complied with all of the previous historic code requirements. The rear
property became illegal. The Code was changed again in 1997, and reduced the lot size to 5000
square feet. The Applicant is seeking relief in order to change the classification of the building
from illegal to legal nonconforming in the event of destruction.
Ayraud asked if the Applicant would be required to destroy the building with or without a
calamity occurring. Barnes stated that if the variance were not approved, the Applicant would
not be required to demolish it.
Remington asked if both properties complied with setback requirements. Barnes was not
familiar with the setbacks for the front property, although the rear property would not comply
with setbacks on the north lot line. The property would still be considered a nonconforming
building because it does not comply with required lot area or setbacks. Remington asked staff
that if at some point in time future owners would want to do any additions or alterations would
the future owner have to request a variance. Barnes responded that the future owner would have
to go the Planning and Zoning Board regarding any changes to the property.
Remington asked how a lot split had occurred in 1979 that did not comply with Code. Barnes
explained that individuals are able to go to the County Assessor's office with a new legal
description and have it recorded. The assessor will assign a new parcel number. The individual
receives two parcel numbers for tax purposes and property identification. The City generally is
not a party to such an instance. Historically, the County never notifies the City when these types
of circumstances occur. Although under the City of Fort Collins Code, one cannot create a new
lot without going through a plat process.
Stockover asked if the rear property were to burn down, could the owner reconstruct it on the
exact same footprint. Barnes said not without the variance.
Miscio asked if the variance were granted, how does that make it a legal use. Bames said the
variance as proposed would be making the rear property into a legal nonconforming building.
The use is not in question. The Board is allowed to make the rear property into a legal
nonconforming building.
Remington asked if at any point in time since the beginning of the zoning ordinance in 1929,
were there any known codes that would have allowed two houses to be built on one lot of this
ZB A
May 10, 2001
Page 6
particular size without splitting the lot. Barnes stated that from 1929 to 1965 there were a
number of code amendments. In researching those amendments in this particular zone district,
one would have been required to have a total lot area of 6000 square feet in order to have two
homes on the property. This lot had 7000 square feet. Up until 1965 an individual could have
come in and applied for a permit to build another house in the back, and that would have been all
right as long as the individual did not create a new lot.
Pawlikowski questioned staff regarding the insurability of the property. Staff did not know and
thought the Applicant could address that issue.
Applicant Participation:
Marc Teets addressed the Board. He is working with Lloyd Drust, the owner. Drust bought the
property directly from the owner in 1986. The property had been sold two previous times. The
man who originally did the lot split did it in 1979, and then he sold the house to Dick Anderson,
who then sold the house to another. Under the current zoning ordinance, if the rear property was
destroyed, it could not be replaced. The owner is in a catch twenty-two situation. He has a
house that is nonconforming and illegal. The owner would like to make it legal, although
nonconforming. It would be explained that way to the next potential buyer.
The property is currently insured. Mortgages exist on both properties. The Applicant is trying to
correct the situation. The Applicant has talked to the owner south of the property, Jerry Moore,
to see if he would be interested in selling 1000 square feet to bring the rear property into
compliance, but Moore was not interested. Other avenues have been explored.
Miscio asked if the property was owner occupied. The Applicant stated that Mr. Durst lived
there since 1986, but is moving.
In support of appeal:
Lloyd Durst, 1062 Blue Herring Drive, addressed the Board. When he bought the property, he
was never notified of the illegal condition. He did consult a lawyer, but due to the statute of
limitations he does not have that avenue to pursue. Durst has looked into every other aspect of
trying to remedy the situation, and this was the last avenue. He lived there for eighteen years,
and it cost his savings. He would like the issue to be resolved.
Board Discussion:
Miscio saw an improvement. Breth agreed. The house has been there since 1921 and has not
caused any problems. He felt the Board needed to rectify the situation and was in favor of
granting the variance. Ayraud was concerned under what authority the Board would grant the
variance. He understands the hardship, but felt it did not meet the requirements of Code. He
saw nothing in the record as to why it should be made nonconforming. He agreed with the rest
of the Board in regards to Mr. Durst's position, but still felt that did not meet the hardship
requirement. Remington was also struggling with a hardship. Miscio felt that there was a
hardship with the victim. Stockover wanted the Board to look at the equal to or better than
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 7
standard. He said that if the rear property were to be damaged and nobody could rebuild it --it
would be a detriment to everybody around there to have a big pile of trash and weeds.
Barnes stated that economics is not grounds for a hardship. The Board has two standards to use
to grant the variance. The hardship standard is where the Board finds by reason of exceptional
physical condition or other extraordinary and exceptional situation unique to such property to
grant the variance. There is the extraordinary and exceptional situation hardship. When this
house was built back in the 1920s it was permitted. One could have two houses on the original
lot size without any violation of code requirements. It was built legally back at the time when it
was constructed. It remained legal until 1979 when a previous owner decided to create a 2000
square foot lot. The use was still legal, but the building became nonconforming because of the
land that it was located on. There is a hardship on this property owner because he cannot get
financing, but Barnes wanted the Board to find something unusual or unique about this property
for the Board to justify the variance. The uniqueness is that in 1979 a prior owner sold part of
the property off and got away with it. Miscio felt the situation was unusual and exceptional.
Eckman asked if the Board was willing to grant variances when title companies make mistakes.
Miscio felt the Board should rectify the situation.
Stockover asked if the motion could be based on a hardship if there were no zoning laws when
the building was originally built, and the fact that there was not a clear path the owner should
have followed when the lot split occurred. Bames felt otherwise. He stated that an individual,
even today, could sell off the back part of their property and the City would never know about it.
The Land Use Code does not allow a creation of an illegal lot. This also applied in 1979.
Barnes told the Board if the lot split was never done and both homes existed on the original
platted lot (the 7000 square foot lot), and since they were built before a zoning code existed
(even up until 1965) both buildings would have been classified as legal nonconforming. If
subject to calamity both could be rebuilt to their original size and location.
Miscio wanted to approve the appeal using the equal to or better than standard. He felt the
improvements were made in the following areas: the property would be more marketable, created
a higher value, eliminated any title and insurance issues, and finance issues. Ayraud felt the
Board was inclined to approve the appeal to add the hardship that Mr. Durst is an innocent
purchaser of land that is an illegal building due to subsequent sellers. Miscio moved to approve
appeal number 2337 for the hardship that the owner was a victim of prior illegal approval of
splitting the lot and because the variance would make the property better, improve market value,
and extinguish future potential issues as result of its current illegal classifications. The motion
was discussed. Stockover wanted to strike the financial aspect of the motion. Miscio struck the
financial issues of the motion. Breth seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Breth and Miscio.
Nays: Ayraud and Remington.
5. APPEAL NO. 2338--Approved
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 8
Address:
306 Wayne Street
Petitioner:
Jenine Abarbanel
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6(D)(1)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required lot square footage from 6333 to 6050, thus reducing the
lot to floor area ratio from 3:1 to 2.87:1. The lot is 6050 square feet. The existing home and
detached garage equal 1224 square feet. They are requesting to add 886 square feet to the home
as a second story addition and two bay windows on the main floor for a total of 2110 square feet.
This is 93 square feet over what is allowed based on the lot square footage (3:1 floor area ratio).
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshi
Please see attached petitioner's letter B.
Staff Comments:
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The Applicant's lot is 6050 square feet.
In the NCL zoning district there is a 3:1 floor area ratio meaning the Applicant can have at the
most 2017 square feet of building, including the main building and the garage. The Applicant
wanted additional square footage for a total of 2110 square feet, which is 93 square feet over
what is allowed. Nuckols referenced the Applicant's rendered drawings.
Applicant Participation:
Jenine Abarbanel, 306 Wayne Street, addressed the Board. She has lived there since 1996. The
current house size is 864 square feet. The Applicant and her neighbors would prefer the addition
to be in the form of a second story rather than adding onto the rear of the house. The setbacks
will be maintained.
Ayraud questioned the Applicant why the additional 93 square feet was needed. The Applicant
responded that currently the house is 864 square feet. A full second story addition exactly over
the current footprint of the house is an additional 924 square feet, but the two bay windows on
the first floor add another 30 square feet. It is not only the bay windows, but an added 60 square
feet on the second floor. Bames clarified that due to ease of construction and aesthetics, it would
be appropriate to do the addition on top of the existing bearing walls and foundation.
Remington asked Applicant Abarbanel if the addition were kept to one story, would any large
trees come out. The Applicant responded no, although it would bring the north wall much closer
to the house on the front property. Both parties would rather have a second story addition. The
Applicant felt her hardship was a small lot. The garage was built in 1932, taking up
approximately 364 square feet. The garage is considered a historic building.
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 9
Board Discussion:
Stockover was in favor of the appeal. Barnes informed the Board that since the lot complies with
current standards as far as minimum lot size, it could not be considered a small lot. Breth was
having trouble finding a hardship, but felt the equal to or better than standard was more
appropriate for aesthetic reasons. Ayraud asked if the ratio requirement would be maintained if
the Applicant built out. Barnes stated that was correct. Ayraud felt the requirements should be
met. Remington agreed with Breth. Breth made a motion to approve appeal number 2338 based
on the equal to or better than standard. Breth stated it would not be detrimental to the public
good. It is better due to maintained integrity of the neighborhood and the lot, by allowing the
owner to build up creating more floor area on the same size lot. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Stockover, Remington, Breth, and Miscio.
Nays: Ayraud.
6. APPEAL NO. 2339--Approved
Address:
110 North Sherwood Street
Petitioner:
Linda Ripley
Zone:
NCM
Section:
4.7(E)(3)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 4 feet in order to allow
a 6' x 12' addition onto the north end of the existing 1-story portion of the home. The east wall
of the addition will line up with the existing east wall of the home, which is already at a 4 foot
setback from the rear property line. Therefore, the addition will not be closer to the rear lot line
than the existing. A similar appeal for this project was heard at the April 12, 2001 ZBA meeting,
at which time a variance was granted to reduce the rear setback for this addition to six feet. It
has since been learned that the existing home is only four feet from the rear lot line, rather than
six feet. Therefore, the request must be reheard.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The lot is very small, 60 feet by 51 feet. The proposed addition will comply with the side
setback, and the lot area to floor area ratio will also be complied with. This is the only feasible
location to construct the addition, and it will line up with the existing rear wall of the home.
Staff Comments:
The lot is extremely shallow. Such a condition can be considered as legitimate grounds for a
hardship variance.
7
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 10
A letter from neighbor Jacqueline Fields, 114 North Sherwood Street, was read stating that there
were no objections, but would like the north fence to be placed on the appropriate property line.
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. The fence seen on the drawing originally
submitted was thought to be the property line, but was not. Last month when this item came
before the Board, the setback was indicated as six feet, although it is only four feet. The fence
on the east side (back property line) is not on the property line.
Ayraud asked if the appeal was identical to what was presented last month, except the numbers
have changed. Barnes stated that was correct.
Applicant Participation:
Linda Ripley, 110 North Sherwood Street, addressed the Board. She wanted the Board to know
that she contacted an engineering company for a survey. When she received the record, the
setback was four feet.
Board Discussion:
Ayraud felt if the Board wanted to approve it the first time, with nothing new except the numbers
on paper. It should be approved again. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number
2339 for the hardship of a shallow lot. Breth seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Remington, Breth and Miscio.
Nays: None.
Breth left the meeting at 10:15 a.m. due to previous engagement.
APPEAL NO. 2340--Approved
Address:
1200 Wheaton Drive
Petitioner:
Richard Alaimo
Zone:
RL
Section:
3.8.11(C)(1)
Back rg ound:
The variance would allow a six foot high fence to be constructed between the front property line
along New Bedford Drive the west side of the home, instead of the four foot maximum height
allowed in the front yard. The six-foot high fence would replace the existing four -foot high
fence and would be in the same location. This is a corner lot, wherein New Bedford is the legal
front lot line, even though the house faces Wheaton Drive. Since New Bedford is considered to
be the front property, a variance is required in order to allow a fence to be taller than four feet.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 11
Please see attached petitioner's letter C. In addition, this is a comer lot, wherein the front lot line
serves as the side lot line, so the intent of the code is met.
Staff Comments:
This is a typical comer lot situation wherein the front of the home faces the legal street side lot
line rather than the legal front lot line.
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The house faces onto Wheaton Drive.
New Bedford Drive is the legal front yard of the property. The Applicant wanted to replace the
four -foot fence with a six-foot fence in the same location.
Applicant Participation:
Richard Alaimo addressed the Board. The owners have experienced invasion of their privacy.
The reason why the fence is not six feet is because of a stop sign. The fence to the actual
sidewalk is 36 feet and he has checked the triangular vision, which is in the Board members''
packets. Applicant Alaimo sent a letter to John Dunlap, who is in charge of the architectural
integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Dunlap had no issues with a six-foot fence.
Board Discussion:
Remington stated this appeal was the standard comer lot that the Board has seen regularly.
Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2340 based on the hardship of the corner
lot configuration that exists. Ayraud seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Remington, and Miscio.
Nays: None.
8. APPEAL NO. 2341--Approved
Address: 6603 South Shields Street
Petitioner: Jerry Richmond, for U.S. Home
Zone: LMN
Section: 3.8.7(C)(f)
Background:
The variance would allow two permanent subdivision ID signs to be located at locations other
than at the entrances into the subdivision. Specifically, the variance would allow a Registry
Ridge ID sign to be located at the southwest corner of Shields and Trilby, and another Registry
Ridge ID sign to be located along Shields Street at the south boundary of the Registry Ridge
development, rather than placing a sign at the three actual entrances into the development as
required. The actual vehicular entrances are at the intersections of Shields and Bon Homme
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 12
Richard Drive, Shields and Truxton Drive, and Trilby and Wainwright. The Code would allow
one ID sign at each of the three entrances.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The Overall Development Plan for Registry Ridge authorizes commercial uses at the 2 entrance
intersections along Shields. The Sign Code allows the potential for a sign for those uses to be
located at least one of those intersections. If the residential ID signs were also located at the
same intersections, sign clutter would result. Therefore, the streetscape is enhanced by spacing
the signs as far apart as possible. Additionally, the applicant is requesting only 2 ID signs,
instead of the 3 ID signs allowed. Thus, the proposal results in an overall signage plan that is
better than what would be allowed without a variance. Further, the recorded development plan
shows a proposed ID sign to be located at the corner of Shields and Trilby. Since the plan
showed it there, the developer had planned the entry feature at the intersection around the sign.
Staff Comments:
The Board has considered similar requests to locate subdivision ID signs at locations other than
at the actual entrance. However, staff does not recall a situation where a request has been made
to locate a sign at the intersection of two arterial streets. If the Board is unable to find grounds
for a hardship variance, the possibility of an "equal to or better than" variance could be explored
since the applicant is stating that two signs are better than three, and that having the signs located
away from the competing commercial development sign clutter is preferable to having all the
signs clumped together.
A letter from Robert and Janice Collins, 1312 West Trilby, was read. The Collins' were opposed
to the appeal. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Per sign code one
identification sign per entrance to the property identifying a subdivision or housing project is
allowed. They are allowed to be 35 square feet in area per face and up to six feet in height. The
Applicant could have a sign at the intersection of Trilby and Wainwright, Truxton and South
Shields, and Bon Homme Richard and South Shields. They are requesting to have two signs. A
sign at the intersection of Trilby and Shields and a sign at the south end of the project on Shields.
The signs are allowed to be up to 35 square feet per face. The proposed signage does not exceed
that requirement.
Applicant Participation:
Linda Ripley, with VF Ripley Associates, representing Jerry Richmond of US Home due to
illness, addressed the Board. The Registry Ridge project is a 205 acre project that includes
single family and multi -family residential projects as well as a day care and convenience center.
The project is fairly old. The development review process was started in 1994. Ripley has been
involved with the project since 1997. The Applicant has had trouble with city development
review process. On the drawings (site plan and landscape plan) submitted, the ID sign for the
project has always been shown at Trilby and Shields. The landscape plan was designed around
the sign feature. For three years the Applicant was unaware that the proposed sign location was
unacceptable. The Applicant is trying to keep the sign in its proposed location that has always
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 13
been represented to the neighbors. Applicant Ripley proposed to have the signage at pedestrian
entrances. The sign will be 22 square feet rather than 35 square feet, which is under what the
Sign Code would allow. The second proposed sign has an even smaller scale, less than 22
square feet.
Applicant Ripley explained why her proposal is equal to or better than the Code. There is a
conflict with the signage at the day care center and the convenience center if the Applicant were
to use the vehicular entrances. The Applicant stated that her solution was better due to the
reduction of overall signage, and the proposed signage would not interfere with the commercial
aspects of the project.
Opposed to Appeal:
William L. Brotherton and his wife Susan, 6609 S. Shields Street, addressed the Board. The
Brothertons expressed their concerns regarding the US Home signage, and would like the
Applicant to follow the Code regulations. Barnes wanted to inform everyone that the entry
feature would be allowed regardless of any input. It was the Applicant's desire to put the
lettering on the entry feature wall. The Brothertons discussed the disruption and frustration the
Registry Ridge project has caused them.
Greg Seabaum, construction manager of the development, addressed the Board. He addressed
the construction issues that concerned the Brothertons.
i
Board Discussion:
Remington wanted to know staffs position regarding vehicular entrance versus pedestrian
entrance. Barnes believed that a variance was required and the intent of the Code was to put
those signs at vehicular entrances to identify a subdivision.
Ayraud wanted to know what was on the other sides of Trilby and Shields and whether there
were plans before the City for those areas. Barnes stated that directly across the street was a City
owned natural area, additional undeveloped property, and residential developments on the north
side of Trilby. Barnes believed no current proposals were before the City.
The equal to or better than standard for this appeal was discussed. The Board was sympathetic to
the Brothertons as well as the letter from the Collins', but felt the reduction is signage was a
positive.
Remington asked Applicant Ripley if the variance was not approved, what would US Homes
alternative be. Ripley replied that it was not 100% certain what the alternative would be,
although the entry wall feature would still exist.
Miscio informed the Board he was leaning toward approval due to the reduction in signage.
Stockover wanted to know how the Applicant was limited in use of materials. Barnes explained
that the Sign Code was silent in regards to aesthetics, materials, and colors. The Board would be
allowed to put a condition on the variance to build the signs per submitted illustrations. The
ZBA
May 10, 2001
Page 14
Applicant would be required to put in some landscaping, but not necessarily what is shown.
Stockover was in favor of approving the appeal with the condition that the Applicant construct
the sign per submitted drawings.
Remington asked the Brothertons if the Board put a condition on the appeal requiring US Homes
to pave an asphalt access for them, would they feel better. The Brothertons said they would feel
better. This condition will be put in letter form.
Ayraud moved to approve appeal number 2341 on the basis that it is equal to or better than Code.
First, the overall impact is not detrimental to the public as a whole. The purpose of this
particular code limits the number of signage on the streetscape and to maintain an aesthetic
amount of signage for a large development such as this. This would accomplish that by reducing
the square footage signage by 55 to 60 percent in reducing the signs from three to two. As a
condition of this, the developer and the Brothertons have agreed to meet to talk about landscape
between the egress/regress driveways and that they have discussed and agreed to asphalt pave
those items. Another condition was placed that the sign should meet the proposed plans the
Applicant set forth, the landscape should be substantially similar, and no additional signage for
the development should be placed. Miscio seconded the motion.
Both parties agreed upon the condition.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Ayraud, Stockover, Remington, and Miscio.
Nays: None.
Other Business:
Stockover wanted to start the next meeting earlier to allow the Board time for discussion. Bames
will be on vacation. A short discussion was held regarding time limit of the meetings.
Remington mentioned an option was to table items. Barnes responded it would be difficult for
the Board because often times people need quick answers.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
William Stockover, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
a336
a y D S. T 4�� tf a
CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST
ADDRESS: REXACO CONOCO / 2451 TAFT HILL ROAD / FORT COLLINS
1) REXACO'S REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE IS TO REPLACE THE
PRESENT PRICE SIGN WITH A NEW SMALLER PRICE SIGN WILL NOT
IMPAIR THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE FORT COLLINS
ZONING ORDINANCE.
1 , 2) REXACO'S PRIMARY BUSINESS IS SELLING GASOLINE CONNECTED
TO THE CAR WASH. THE PRICE SIGN IS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE IN
DOING BUSINESS. OUR REQUEST IS TO REPLACE THE PRESENT 30
SQ. FT. PRICE SIGN WITH THE NEW 23.86 SQ. FT. PRICE SIGN.
PHOTOS ATTACHED ARE OF THE OLD SIGN AND A RENDERING OF ITS
REPLACEMENT. THE OLD PRICE SIGN IS OLD AND DETERIORATING.
THERE ARE NO REPLACEMENT PARTS. THE NEW PRICE SIGN WILL
REPLACE THE OLD SIGN ON THE BRICK BASE, SHOWN.
3) MAY WE HAVE YOUR PERMISSION TO MAKE THIS CHANGE?
4) ATTACHED: 1 (ONE) PHOTO OF PRESENT PRICE SIGN
1 (ONE) RENDERING OF NEW PRICE SIGN
1 (ONE) PLOT PLAN SHOWING SIGN LOCATION
PETITIONER' S LETTER A
No Text
Rexaco #21
2451 Taft Hill Road
Fort Collins, CO
14' 9"
Yoke E
6 ft Capsule Yoke System
Total Sign Area: 23.86 sq ft
Overall Height:
6 ft capsule: IZ89 sq ft
3x Price cabinet: 10.97 sq ft
A L L E Y
F O R
E
D R I V"E
8' UTIL1 Y EASMENT �.,\ (1 •, !
pi O
2
D Z
7C \ < r
m 1
o I m
D m I
% 9 / �m
i °CA
°
nr
=ram
C '
0
T
O.»
T
n
m v=
�
--{
p
y >m
ao
r a-
s o4
T OS
p p
c
r
f
�J�
a
Gm
I rn
sa
oz_
00
r 0
2s
-o
>AT
T
T p
/ c
ma 10' 3
r.,n
—
sis
>
D
�
p
�
1
9m
Di I
0
z<
om
m
Iz
m
a 333
To: Planning and Zoning, City of Fort Collins
From: Jenine Abarbanel and Nathan Torkington
306 Wayne St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.495-9871
Date: April 12, 2001
Re: Request for zoning variance.
The variance requested is that 306 Wayne St. be allowed to exceed the NCL lot coverage limitation of 33% by just
2%, an overbuilding of only 94 square feet. The current zoning is a hardship upon the owner/occupants due to the
following conditions:
• There is an oversized garage on the lot, 360 sq ft in size. • Given a choice, the family occupying the lot would
prefer to have 360 sq ft of living space, considering that the garage is a mostly unused space aside from some
storage. however, given the historical nature of the garage tearing it down is not in anyone's best interest and
certainly would be considered destructive to the overall character of the neighborhood. It is therefore
suggested that the square footage of the garage may be neglected from the calculation of lot coverage.
• The lot in question is smaller, on average, than most of the lots in the area This is due to a past subdivision
which cut off approximately 1500 sq ft of the original lot to create 1015 Akin. This subdivision left the lot
too small.to meet the needs of a modern family with the imposed NCL coverage limitations.
Given that the NCL lot coverage limitation is designed to reduce the appearance of density in the area (therefore
being a limit on all above -ground square footage and not just the footprint of the built up area on the lot), we will
attempt to demonstrate that the visual impact of our proposed remodel is consistant with the immediate area For
an example, please refer to Figures 1 and 2, which show three houses on Akin. The first photo shows them as seen
from our porch, the second shows them head on. These houses appear to be very densely packed because they are
so close together. However, they meet the density requirements by having long, skinny lots. Our remodel would
not appear any more dense than these houses do.Kigures 3 and 4 show our house and the two adjacent houses
first from the perspective of the houses shown in Figures 1 and 2, and then head on. Figure 5 is an "artist's
conception" of what Figure 4 would look like with the proposed changes.
Plans for the remodel are attached. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jenine Abarbanel and Nathan Torkington
306 Wayne St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970 495 9871
e-mail: ienine0frii.com and enat(dfrii.com
PETITIONER'S LETTER 8