Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/18/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 18, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth, Dan Keating, Kathryn Krause, Eva Lieser, and William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Gustafson and Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes. from the February 11, 1999 meeting were approved. 1. 3. APPEAL 2242: --Approved Address: 1201 Maple Street Petitioner: David Gingerich, owner Zone: LMN Section: 3.8.3(1) Backeround The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in the existing detached garage, instead of entirely within the home. Specifically, the existing garage • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 2 would be used primarily for the storage of building materials used in connection with the owner's remodeling business. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is no attached garage on the property that can be used for the business purpose. (Most homes in new areas have attached garages and a variance would not be necessary.) The garage is existing. One letter in support of Applicant's appeal was read for the record. Staff Comments: The Board has considered this type of variance request a number of times with regards to properties in the older part of town. The Board has usually approved the request whenever the detached building is already existing. Gary Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that the home occupation license regulations require that the storage of all equipment, materials, etc., related to the home occupation activity be contained within the home structure. No exterior storage is allowed. Applicant Participation: Applicant, David Gingerich, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he would like to be able to use his garage for storage associated with his remodeling business. The storage would be mostly for building materials and tools which he does not have room for inside his house. Board Member Breth asked applicant if he had vehicles associated with the business that would be parked outside the garage. Applicant mentioned that he is a sole proprietor and only has one truck. Applicant was asked if he would be conducting business out of the garage. Applicant answered that he has an office inside his home and would not be conducting business in the garage. Public Participation: None. • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 3 Board Discussion: Board Member Keating asked for clarification on whether or not the home occupation ordinance allows exterior storage. Lopez answered that the ordinance does not allow exterior storage. A vehicle would be allowed, as long as it is also used for personal use. Board Member Lieser mentioned that the Board has addressed these types of cases numerous times where an area in town has detached garages. These variances have generally been approved. She was in favor of this variance request. Keating made a motion to approve Appeal 2242 based on the hardship stated. Lieser seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Krause, Lieser, Stockover Nays: None Appeal 2242 was approved. APPEAL 2243 — Approved with Conditions Address: 152 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Chris Penner of Samuel Glen Corporation, tenant Zone: D Section: 3.8.7(D)(5)(a) Background: The variance would increase the sign allowance for the building at 152 W. Mountain from 50 square feet to 144 square feet in order to allow the existing, historically significant, "Scrivner's Grocery & Market" sign to remain up, and still allow the tenant to install their own signage advertising their steakhouse. The tenants propose 60 square feet of signage. The existing "Scrivner's" sign is 84 square feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: During exterior remodel of the building, the tenants uncovered the "Scrivner's" sign. The sign has historical significance and the intent is to leave it up, but also add signage for the new business. The new signage of 60 square feet is only 10 square feet over the 50 square foot allowance. The extra 10 square feet is needed in order to lessen confusion as to what the actual business is now, and to offset the 84 square foot Scrivner's sign. Staff read numerous letters into the record. There was one letter in opposition to this appeal. • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 4 Staff Comments: The sign code exempts signs that have been found by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to have been an integral part of a building that is designated as a historic landmark. This building is not a designated historic landmark, however, the LPC and staff of the City's Historic Preservation Office view the sign as a historically significant architectural artifact. Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that the applicants are actually asking for an additional 94 square feet of signage with this request. This property is very narrow — only 25' wide. The Code allows 2 square feet of signage for every foot of building frontage, which would give applicants 50 square foot of signage. If the Scrivner's sign is allowed to remain, it represents 84 square feet of signage. The applicants are requesting that this sign be allowed to remain, as well as increase the signage allowed by 10 square feet, which results in a total of 144 square feet of signage; 94 additional feet than what is allowed by the Code for this building. Occasionally old signs are exempted from the signage allowance if the building is a designated historic site. This site has not been designated as a historic site, and this is the reason the square footage of the Scrivner's sign is counted toward the building's sign allowance. Breth asked if the people who submitted letters had the opportunity to look at the drawings that had been submitted by applicants. Barnes answered that Historic Preservation staff might have had the opportunity to see it; however, was not sure about others who had submitted letters. Barnes mentioned that staff does not send out copies of site plans or drawings with the letters that are sent out to adjacent property owners. The tenants may have shown the plans to these people, but staff was not aware of whether this had happened or not. Applicants are proposing to put signage above the Scrivner's Grocery sign, an awning over the windows which will include some signage, and some window signage. The window signage is less that 6 square feet and is not regulated, so it will not count against applicants' sign allowance. Applicant Participation: Applicants, Chris Penner, and Rick Helter addressed the Board. Applicants mentioned that some of the people who provided letters were shown the proposed sign drawings. Many people have stopped by, including Mrs. Scrivner, to find out about the applicants' project and were shown the proposed drawings. • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 5 Applicants are requesting that the existing Scrivner's sign not be counted toward their signage allowance, and be considered as part of the building for historic purposes. They want to be able to add the word "Saloon" above the Scrivner's sign, which would be approximately 50 square feet, and then add another 10 square feet on the header or awning for signage that reads "Steakhouse Saloon". Applicants have worked hard to determine what the building looked like at the time it was constructed and it looks very much as it does now. As applicants began their renovation, they found a metal fagade over the entire front of the building. As they removed this, they found that the window frames were still intact, etc., and the Scrivner's sign was uncovered. They would like to preserve the Scrivner's sign, but be allowed an additional 10 square footage of signage, over their allowance of 50 square feet, to help them avoid confusion between the Scrivner's sign, and the current business establishment. The largest part of applicants' signage will remain the Scrivner's sign. Because it is so big, applicants feel it is even more important for them to be able to have adequate signage that will allow them to distinguish for customers that the business is a saloon/deli/steakhouse. Applicants added that every sign that is being proposed is much smaller than the Scrivner's sign. One alternative applicants have is to cover up the Scrivner's sign. The day the old fagade was torn off, people started dropping by and asking if the old sign would remain and gave their vote of support for keeping the sign. Lieser asked about the business that is owned by the applicants which is next door. She asked if the current proposal was an extension of the existing business. Applicants answered that the two businesses are separate corporations and there will be no inside door adjoining the two. She asked about the name for the new business. Applicants answered that the name for the new business will be "Steakhouse Saloon". The only place this name will show up is on the awning. Lieser asked about the "Saloon" sign that is proposed above the Scrivner's sign. Applicants answered that after doing some research, they found that the old saloons and pubs were identified by signage on the building with words such as "whiskey", "saloon" or "tavern". Applicants were uncomfortable with adding a "whiskey" sign to the building. A "tavern" sign might have worked, but there is a tavern right next door. "Saloon" was their first choice and reflects the cosmetics and ambiance of the business that will be inside. Lieser was unsure that the Scrivner's sign would show up once the additional proposed signage is in place. She thought it might be helpful to move the "saloon" sign down onto the awning. • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 6 Keating asked for more detail on applicants' "saloon" sign. Applicants answered that the sign is intended to be painted onto the building, and in the same font, just as the Scrivner's sign. Keating asked about who would be painting the sign. Applicants answered that it would be done by a professional painter. Board Member Krause asked about the businesses that have existed in the building since the Scrivner's market. Applicants confirmed that there have been numerous businesses in this building since that time. Krause asked whether or not applicants would have wanted to keep the sign had there not been so much public support to keep it. Applicants mentioned that the reason they want to keep this sign is due to the amount of public concern over it. If applicants were not allowed to do something very similar to what was being proposed, it was their intent to cover up the sign. Breth asked about colors that would be used for the signs. Applicant mentioned that they are going to try to match colors, as best as possible, with the existing Scrivner's sign. The "saloon" sign will have green letters, outlined in yellow, against the white building. The awning will be a dark maroon color. Public Participation: Karen McWilliams, a Historic Preservation Planner from the City of Fort Collins addressed the Board. She mentioned that they are in support of this appeal for additional sign allowance for this property in an attempt to protect and preserve the Scrivner's sign. Keating asked why this building had not been designated as an historic site. McWilliams answered that the building is not located within the Old Town Historic District. That district starts at the corner of College and Mountain and extends throughout the triangle part of Old Town. In this case, since the building is outside of this district, the property owner would need to come to the City and actually ask to have the building designated as a historic site. Breth asked if Historic Preservation staff were aware of what applicants were proposing for this site. McWilliams answered that staff has strongly suggested that applicants not make the signage look quite so similar to the existing Scrivner's sign to assure there is no confusion between the historic old sign and the modern signage. Historic Preservation staff did not look at what applicants were proposing in terms of the size of the signage, the layout, colors, choice of awning, etc. Their intent was to encourage the preservation of the old sign. Keating asked about what boundaries have been determined by City staff, outside of the Old Town Historic District, within which recommendations to preserve old signs would be made. McWilliams mentioned that no boundaries have been determined. These decisions would be made on a case by case basis and would be based on the importance of the sign and the amount of Community support for preserving such sign. This sign has a great deal of support from the Community for its preservation. • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 7 Board Discussion: Stockover mentioned that it appears that the goal here is to save the original sign. He had some concern about additional permanent signage being added to the building since there is a chance that sandblasting or chemicals might have to be used to remove this signage if there was a change in tenants, which could cause harm to the sign that everyone is attempting to preserve. He asked staff if the Board could require a detachable sign. Barnes answered that the Board has the flexibility to impose conditions to any variance that is granted. He mentioned that if the Board is inclined to allow the Scrivner's sign to stay and not count towards any sign allowance, and thereby allows this business, or some other business, to have their own signage, plus grants the additional 10 square feet of signage, a condition should be considered that requires the Scrivner's sign to stay. Conditions could also be placed on the colors, the materials, the method of application, etc. It would then be up to the applicants as to whether or not they would be willing to go along with the conditions. If they did not want to go along with these, they could go ahead and remove the Scrivner's sign and put up their own 50 square feet of signage. Keating asked applicants if, when they found the Scrivner's sign under the metal fagade, they considered the disadvantages that would be caused by leaving the signage in place. Applicants answered that they have considered both the advantages and disadvantages of leaving this signage in place. Many people have come forward expressing their support to preserve the sign, which has put some pressure on them. Applicants understood that they could have simply removed the sign and still made the building look very nice with brand new signage, etc. This would have been the easier route for them to pursue since they could have avoided doing the legwork with the Historic Planning staff, they would not have been required to come before the Board, and they could have saved some money. However, applicants felt that it was important to try to preserve the sign since the sign is historic and the building is part of Old Town. They wanted to do their part in keeping with the attitude of Old Town. Based on the level of support from the Community to keep the sign, doing this would also build rapport with Ft. Collins' citizens. Lieser asked applicants if the awning was a stationary or roll -up awning. Applicants answered that it was a roll -up awning. Krause asked if there were any other nearby examples where the signage square footage is even close to what is being requested. Lopez mentioned that Trailhead Tavern has more signage than what would normally be allowed because the former tenant was a non- conforming use. There may be some other shops in the vicinity that might have more signage than what is currently allowed that were also grandfathered in. Barnes added that while there may not be a lot of businesses with big, non -conforming signs, other buildings have more sign allowance than they are using and this might change as different tenants move in. • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 8 Krause mentioned that she is concerned about the precedent that might be set in this case by allowing the additional signage square footage, and also about having a big "saloon" sign at the top of the building face. Keating asked applicants about the signage on the Trailhead Tavern and whether there was pressure to keep the marquis sign. Applicants answered that they did not have to go through this process, but wanted to keep the sign. Breth mentioned that he could be in favor of the additional signage, but wanted to see some control and/or restrictions on colors and making sure that any new tenants would be required to keep the Scrivner's sign. Breth asked if the lights would be illuminated. Applicants confirmed this. Krause asked if other Board Members had any concerns about the fonts that applicants would be using based on McWilliams' earlier input. Breth mentioned that he was not concerned about the font that would be used, but wanted the sign to be done in the same colors. Applicants mentioned that they would have no problem with complying with McWilliams' suggestions. There was some discussion on what criteria could be included in a motion. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, provided Board Members with clarification on this issue. Stockover made a motion that Appeal 2243 be approved based on the hardship stated, with the stipulations that: • this variance applies only to the Steakhouse Saloon business • the "saloon" sign be a removable sign and not directly painted onto the building • the new sign be constructed with compatible colors to the existing building • the Scrivner's sign be required to stay and not be painted over as long as the Steakhouse Saloon business has more than 50 square feet of regulated signage. Keating seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Krause, Lieser, Stockover Nays: Appeal 2243 was approved with conditions. • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 9 APPEAL 2244 — Tabled Address: 1815 LaPorte Avenue Petitioner: Valerie Favicchio, owner Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) Background The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5' to 2' 10" in order to allow a one story addition to the rear of a single family dwelling. The east wall of the addition will line up with the existing east wall, which is already only 2' l0" from the lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Due to existing conditions with the narrowness of the lot, the existing wall, and the location of the existing detached garage, the proposed configuration is the most feasible. This allows existing door and window openings to be utilized, as well as load bearing walls, foundations, etc. A letter in support of applicant's appeal was read for the record. Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Valerie Favicchio, addressed the Board. She mentioned that her existing house is somewhat small, approximately 958 square feet, and she would like to add some more room. She has been in her neighborhood for approximately two years, loves the neighborhood, and would like to stay there. She has also done some fairly extensive landscaping around the house and does not want to relocate. The existing house sits close to the street and the only real feasible location for an addition is in the back. There is an existing garage in the back on the west side of the property line. Applicant has designed the addition to try to minimize the impact of the addition and still utilize existing load bearing walls, etc. An architect has helped them with these plans. Breth asked about where the 12' proposed extension lines up with the covered patio of the house next door. Applicant was not sure. Breth asked if the new roof line would be a hip roof similar to what currently exists. Applicant mentioned that the new roof would not peak any higher than the existing roof but did not know much about the specifics. Cl Public Participation: • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 10 Bill Eckert, one of applicant's neighbors from across the street, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he has recently been denied full use of his properties on LaPorte Avenue by the City of Fort Collins due to future plans to widen the Avenue. This has caused him financial and emotional distress and he was of the opinion that this would cause the applicant future financial and emotional distress. He thought that the City owed the applicant leniency and consideration of her request due to this future distress. Gail Cass, applicant's neighbor to the east, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is against this variance request because the 2' 10" setback puts the addition extremely close to his fence which separates the two properties, and because the 12' length that the addition extends comes right to the end of his patio. Although the addition is only one- story, it would block his view from the patio. Cass also mentioned that he maintains the fence, and the proposed 2' 10" setback would not give him much room to work. Cass provided the Board with some additional pictures showing the current view from his patio. Keating asked Cass how long he had lived in his house. Cass answered that he moved in in 1976. Keating asked about the date of the construction of the patio. Cass answered that the patio was existing when he purchased the house. Stockover asked Cass about the height of the fence. Cass answered that it was a 6' fence, and each section between the posts was 8' in length. Cass also mentioned that he would lose some privacy if the addition was allowed due to the windows that are proposed on that side of the house. Board Discussion: Stockover asked applicant if she had taken into account any of Cass' concerns. She mentioned that she has to the extent that the windows that are of concern are in a bedroom and not in a room that is occupied often. Her intent is to be able to stay where she is and get more room. Structurally, based on input from her architect, the proposed plan is what will work the best. Applicant mentioned that there is a 6' fence between the two houses, and that the lots are very deep, so there is a lot of back yard left in both of the lots beyond where the proposed addition and the neighbor's patio is. She did not believe that her proposed addition was taking anything away from the neighbor next door. She also mentioned that her neighbor's garage sits right on their property line in the back which also limits her options. • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 11 Stockover asked for clarification on the plans. Applicant provided this. He also asked about the veneer that would be used for the addition. Applicant answered that she will be using brick that matches the existing house. Roof slope was also briefly discussed. Breth mentioned that this situation does fall under the narrow lot scenario and is similar to a lot of things that the Board has granted in the past. However, there appears to be room to move the addition over a couple of feet and be within 2" of complying with the required 5' setback. Stockover mentioned that he is opposed to this request due to the hardship imposed on applicant's neighbor. Breth made a motion to deny Appeal 2244 because of the detriment to the public good. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Stockover Nays: Krause, Keating Board member Lieser had to leave the meeting early and did not participate in this or the next appeal. Eckman mentioned that the Board could now pursue other motions, if desired. At this point, no variance was granted since it takes an affirmative vote to do this. He also mentioned that the Board could table this issue until the time additional board members were present to lessen the possibility of a tie vote. Keating asked applicant about a tree in the back yard. Applicant answered that this tree is on the neighbor's property directly to the west of her. Stockover asked if applicant would be allowed to bring additional information to another meeting if this appeal were tabled. Eckman affirmed this. Stockover suggested that the applicant could work out an agreement with Cass and then come back to the Board with what was agreed upon. Keating asked Cass about the view he sees from his patio on the east side of his property. He mentioned that he sees his driveway which goes up the side of his house, his neighbor's fence, the neighbor's trees, sky, etc. Cass mentioned that he is not totally against an addition. He is objecting to the closeness to the fence. He would be willing to try to work something out with applicant. Stockover made a motion to table this issue to another meeting. Breth seconded the motion. • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 12 Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Krause, Stockover Nays: Appeal 2244 was tabled. There was some additional discussion with applicant. Board Members encouraged applicant to work with her neighbor to come up with some sort of compromise and bring it back to the Board. It was also mentioned that if applicant chose to change the proposed addition so it met the 5' setback, no additional action would be required from the Board. Applicant can also choose to bring the same proposal back to the Board. Applicant was instructed to let Barnes know when she was ready to come back before the Board. 4. APPEAL 2245 — Approved Address: 531 Del Clair road Petitioner: Steve and Sheila Pfister, owners Zone: RL Section: 3.8.11(3)(a) Background: The variance will allow a portion of a fence that is located between the front property line and the building line to exceed 4' in height. Specifically, a 6' high masonry/wood fence is being constructed on the north side of the home. The fence extends 12' beyond the north wall of the building. The north lot line along Del Clair is the legal front lot line, even thought the home faces Cortez. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a corner lot where the house faces the legal street side lot line rather than the legal front lot line. The `back yard" is quite shallow and small. The proposed 12' back yard expansion is desired in order to enlarge the yard. If the legal front lot line was along Cortez, this variance would not be necessary. Letters in support and one letter in opposition to this appeal were read for the record. Staff Comments: This is a comer lot that creates a unique situation since the home faces the legal side lot line. The Board has heard a number of similar requests in the past. Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that Del Clair is considered the front yard in this case. The Code requires that no fence over 4' in height can be erected from the front property line to the front face of the building. Applicants have erected a 5 '/z - 6' block structure approximately 10' in front of the building face as part of • • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 13 his fence project. The measurement from the inside edge of the sidewalk to the block part of the fence is 22'. Typically in these neighborhoods the front property line is between 2 — 4' behind the back of the sidewalk. In this case, a person could conceivably build a garage at the same location of applicants' fence, as long as they abided by the required 5' setback. Any real line of sight problems for the neighbor to the east is occurring by some existing pine trees that have been planted and not from applicants' proposed fence. The trees are approximately 9' from the inside edge of the sidewalk. Keating asked if staff had received a letter from the neighbor to the east. Barnes confirmed this and mentioned that it was a letter in support of the variance. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Steve Pfister, addressed the Board. He mentioned that they were putting up the rock wall in an effort to expand their back yard. They have a very small back yard. Both of their mothers live with them and they like to sit out in the back yard, so this was an attempt to give them some more room. Applicant enjoys doing landscaping and intends to do a lot of gardening work between the rock wall and the sidewalk to enhance the appearance. Applicant was unaware that anyone was in opposition to this project. He mentioned that it was also a surprise to him that Del Clair was his front yard. He thought it was his side yard. Applicant has talked to several neighbors, including the one directly next to them, and they had no objections. The letter that was received in opposition to this appeal stated that it would obstruct the view of the neighbor to the west, but the neighbor to the west submitted a letter stating that it will not obstruct her view and that she has no objections. Applicant, Sheila Pfister, addressed the Board. She mentioned that the person who submitted the letter in opposition to their appeal appears to have an issue with something that has happened in the past. She mentioned that they have a very nice neighborhood and everyone is usually very accommodating. She was very surprised that a letter in opposition to their appeal had been submitted. Stockover asked if applicants could show him where the person lives who submitted the letter opposing their appeal. Applicants mentioned that this person lives in the cul-de-sac behind them, so he is not directly affected by this project. • ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 14 Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Krause mentioned that the Board has had similar cases to this in the past where, because of the configuration of the house on the lot, variances were granted. She was in favor of this appeal. Stockover agreed. Krause made a motion to approve Appeal 2245 for the hardship stated. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Krause, Stockover Nays: Appeal 2245 was approved for the hardship stated. Other Business: A. Memo from the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board: Barnes read a memorandum from the Ft. Collins Senior Advisory Board regarding the International Year of Older Person. The memo encouraged Boards and Commissions to take into account the older generation when making decisions, planning, etc. Bames mentioned that if any board members wanted additional information, they could be put in contact with a member from the Senior Advisory Board. B. Boards and Commission Training: Barnes reviewed a training opportunity that is available for all Boards and Commission members on April 30, 1999. RSVP is scheduled for March 22, 1999. Anyone who is interested should turn in their slips to staff. C. Budget: Barnes read a memorandum from the City's Budget Office. They are seeking input from the Board on key budget issues for the years 2000 and 2001. Any board members who want to provide feedback on policy or service issues, should get their suggestions to Barnes by May 3, 1999. Ll D. Next Meeting: ZBA Mar. 18, 1999 Page 15 Just a reminder that the next meeting will occur in three weeks, since the March meeting was pushed back a week. E. Alternate Board Member: Stockover asked if an alternate board member had been chosen to replace Board Member Gustafson. Barnes answered that this appointment will be made as part of the regular recruitment process. The deadline for applications is sometime in April. Interviews will be conducted in May. Meeting adjourned at 10.42 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator