Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/12/1998A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 12, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth, Robert Gustafson, Dan Keating, Kathryn Krause, Eva Lieser, Diane Shannon, and William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: t. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the October 8, 1998 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2238 —Approved: Address: 2001 Bennington Circle Petitioner: Paul Nordwall, Owner Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(d) • • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 2 Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south property line from 5' to 4' in order to allow an 8' x 16' workshop addition to be constructed on the side of the garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See Petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that this is a corner lot situation, and that the 5' minimum setback applies to the lot line in question. Applicant is proposing an addition that he plans to use as a workshop on the south side of his home. The proposed addition would join the existing garage. The neighbors to the south of the Applicant do not have any windows along the portion of their home that would be adjacent to the proposed addition. There was a question as to whether or not the addition would meet the City's fire code if the variance was granted. Lopez mentioned that the Code requires structures to be fire protected only when they are within 3', so this addition would not violate the fire code. There was a question as to the distance of an already existing addition to the home from the property line. Lopez mentioned that the existing addition was 6' from the property line. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Paul Nordwall, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is a relatively new resident of Fort Collins and that he owns the lot at 2001 Bennington Circle which is at the corner of Stuart Street and Bennington Circle. He would like to build an addition to the north side of his home for the purpose of a workshop. He does pottery, as well as other arts and crafts, and likes the southern and western exposures that allow for sunlight and warmth throughout the winter. The proposed location of the addition would follow the current roof line and would be a more natural - looking addition on this side of the garage. The large spruce tree out in front of his property would virtually hide the addition. Mark Hout, Applicant's architect from UNI Design, addressed the Board. He mentioned that the proposed location of the addition allows him to tie in the construction with the existing roof line which keeps the addition from looking like it was an add -on. This will allow for a less costly and more comfortable addition for the Applicant. • • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 3 Hout mentioned that he did not have the opportunity to mark out the actual property lines. From just looking at the space visually, it seemed to him that the space between the Applicant's home and the neighbor to the north was greater than 10'. Board Member Shannon asked if the building materials for the addition would be similar to the materials that were used on the existing home. Hout mentioned that this would be the case. Applicant mentioned that he has talked to each of the neighbors in the immediate vicinity and have found no objection from anyone. The only question was whether or not he would be running a commercial business from his home. Applicant has no intent of running a business. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Board Member Shannon mentioned that she thought the Applicant's addition was well thought out and would not affect anyone else. She was in favor of approving the request. Board Member Gustafson mentioned that the placement of the house on the property does lend itself somewhat to a hardship. He made a motion to approve Appeal 2238 based on the hardship stated. Board Member Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Stockover, Breth, Krause, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2238 was approved. 4. APPEAL 2239 — Approved: Address: 324 Walnut Petitioner: Zelda Menuskin, Tenant Zone: D Section: 3.8.7(A)(2) ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 4 Background: The variance would allow a sign to project above the top of the fascia wall of the building. Specifically, it would allow the "Beads" sign to remain at its current location, projecting above the top of the wall by approximately 3'. The sign used to be located on the wall, but above the window, and has recently been moved above awning. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See Petitioner's submittal documents. Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that the property is located on East Walnut Street. Applicant recently added awnings over the windows which prompted the relocation of her already existing sign. The facade for this building is very short as compared to shop next door. In lieu of reducing the size of the sign, or looking at other options, Applicant opted to move the sign above the roof line. The Code does not allow for the extension of signs above the roof line. Lopez also mentioned that the "Tannery Building" sign which is located on top of the building in question has been there for many years, maybe since 1981. This sign is considered directional signage and is not regulated by the Code. There was a question regarding the roof on the building which sits back from the building's face. Lopez confirmed that there is a roof which sits back from the face of the building. There was a question as to the distance between this roof and the front of the building. This distance was unknown. Board Member Krause asked for clarification of the Code on this issue. Lopez mentioned that the Code was changed several years ago to prohibit roof top signage of any form, except for roof signs on mansard roofs. Krause mentioned that from an aesthetic point of view, the Applicant's sign is in alignment with everything else and appears to be framed in the back by the roof which sits back from the building face. She was supportive of Applicant's request. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Zelda Menuskin, addressed the Board. She mentioned that she is the business owner of Beads which is located at 324 Walnut Street. One of the reasons she chose to extend the sign above the existing roof line, was for aesthetic purposes. The roof line in back is actually above the sign, even though the front facade is not. The sign is very well framed in by the roof in the back. The awnings that were installed • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 5 were not a choice. The store has very little square footage and, because Leroy's Locksafe wraps around her store, and the front of the store is cinderblock, there is no place where an air conditioning unit can be installed. The store becomes unbearably hot during the summer months. The awnings were installed in an effort to reduce the heat. Applicant stressed that her variance should be granted based on the hardship created by the heat situation, together with the fact that sign is not above the actual roof line, and the fact that Applicant has no other location to install the sign due to the small size of her store. Applicant mentioned that the awnings would block the sign if it were placed in front of the door and also mentioned that the sign was an existing sign that was repainted to go more with the Old Town area and she would like to keep it. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Board Member Shannon concurred with the earlier comments of Board Member Krause. She felt that there was a hardship created by the fact that the facade is very narrow, and due to the heat problems created by the sun beating in through the windows. She was in favor of this variance. Board Member Breth mentioned that he did not support this variance. He hoped that the Tannery Building sign could be removed. He mentioned that he understands the hardships the Applicant presented, but, without installing a parapet wall, the sign sticks out too much, and is in violation of the Code. Board Member Keating asked for clarification on the roof behind the Applicant's store. Lopez mentioned that the Tannery building is one large building. It appears that the building was constructed in phases. Leroy's Locksafe occupies most of what exists under the larger roof that wraps around the building. The cinderblock construction does suggest that there may have been a wood frame structure behind it and that everything in the front was added to it. Rather than tie the new construction into the original roof line, it appears that a flat roof was used. Applicant provided the Board with a picture that more clearly showed building from the side. She mentioned that her store, as well as Haley's Comics and Leroy's Locksafe are all owned by Leory Younger. She pointed out that the Good -Will building has signage that goes up higher than Applicant's. It was Applicant's feeling that the facade on her building is the most classy in the area and feels that her sign brings a bright, Old -Town feel to that block. • • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 6 Board Member Krause asked Applicant if she had any pictures that showed the area from a wider perspective. Board Member Keating asked Applicant if she had any pictures that showed the east side of the building. Applicant let Board Members look at the pictures she had with her. Lopez mentioned that Paul Eckman, the City's Deputy City Attorney, mentioned that he is somewhat aware of this building. The structure to the back of the building was an old stone structure. The front area was tacked on to this stone structure. Board Member Keating asked for clarification of the Sign Code. Lopez mentioned that the Code is very clear that no sign can be installed above any part of a roof, with the exception of an area of a building where there is a roof, then a flush wall and then another roof, i.e. a porch roof. A sign could be placed on the flush wall in this instance. In Applicant's case, there is no flush wall and, therefore, the sign is extending above the flat roof and is in violation to the Code. The fact that the gable roof behind Applicant's sign, extends above it, is of no relevance to the Code, since the sign is not on a flush wall. It was mentioned that if a parapet wall were built behind the sign, then the sign would be in compliance with the Code. Lopez affirmed this. The parapet would be recognized as an architectural feature of the building and, therefore, it would be a flush wall that a sign could be placed upon. Applicant was asked if this would be an option. She mentioned that this would be an option. However, because of the hardships she has mentioned, she was hoping that her variance could be approved without her having to build a parapet wall. Because this is her first year in business, she mentioned that she is trying to avoid any additional expenses that she can. Krause mentioned that any parapet wall that is installed would have to be chopped off at 4/5ths the length of the storefront because of the Tannery Building sign. Lopez agreed with this and mentioned that it would obviously look better if there were a parapet wall all the way across the entire building. Board Member Gustafson asked if this property was within the Historic District and required approval from the Preservation Commission for any type of additions, etc. Lopez mentioned that it is not in the Historic District. Board Member Lieser mentioned that aesthetically the sign looks fine. However, on page 114 of the Land Use Code, prohibited signs include roof top signs and all other signs which project above the fascia wall. Roof top signs are the first listing under prohibited signs. Gustafson asked if a projecting sign over the sidewalk was possible. Lopez mentioned that this was an option. He mentioned that another option is an awning sign. An awning sign could be extended up to 4'. • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 7 Applicant mentioned that her awning is not 4' in length. She mentioned that had she initially planned on putting the sign on the awning, she would have purchased one awning, instead of two. Chairperson Stockover mentioned that he was in support of this appeal. He mentioned that it was his feeling that the intent of the Code was more for new development where you are starting fresh and can design things properly. Adding a parapet wall could be done but will not necessarily improve the look of the area. The intent of the Code is to keep a clean appearance. It was his feeling that the Applicant would be throwing her money away trying to improve something that is not really going to improve until a complete restoration of the building is done. The sign seems to fit the situation that currently exists and he feels that there is a hardship with the heat exposure. Krause was in agreement with Stockover and mentioned that the Beads sign distracts from the Tannery Building sign and that this is positive. Keating asked about who owns the Tannery sign. Applicant mentioned that Leroy owns it. Keating asked if Applicant has had any dialogue with Leroy about removing the sign. Applicant has discussed this with Leroy and his son, Wayne, but nothing has been done to date. Keating mentioned that he is struggling with this variance somewhat. He asked if a condition could be placed on the variance that the Tannery sign be removed. Stockover asked if a motion could be made and a condition placed on it that would require the variance to be reheard, or the sign brought into compliance, if any of the other signage on the building changed. Eckman mentioned that this could be done. Breth mentioned that he is in favor of the parapet wall. He feels it would be a simple thing to do and would provide a solid substance behind the sign. He suggested that the Tannery Building signed be moved further down to help distinguish Applicant's space. Eckman mentioned that if the Board believes there is a detriment to the public good, since this is a criteria that must be considered in the granting of a variance, and the public has stated an intent not to have signs extending above the walls, and by granting this variance you would have two signs instead of one extending above the walls, the Board could characterize that there is a detriment to the public good of granting the variance unless the other sign comes down. This would assure that only one sign remained extended above the walls of the building. Breth mentioned that even if the Tannery sign is removed, a sign that is not in compliance with the Code remains. Keating mentioned that he agreed with Eckman. He also mentioned that a parapet wall constructed only across Applicant's store would be aesthetically unpleasing. If a parapet wall is constructed, it should stretch across the entire building. This would be asking Applicant to do a lot considering the area of town her store is located in. • • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 8 Keating made a motion to approve Appeal 2239, with the condition that the Tannery Building sign be removed. Board Member Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Stockover, Krause, Shannon Nays: Gustafson, Lieser, Breth Appeal 2239 was approved, with conditions. 5. Other Business: A. Board Member Liability: There was a question from Keating after the October meeting regarding errors, omissions and liabilities for Board Members. Eckman mentioned that there has been some question regarding the Housing Authority and some of their hiring and employment practices and the liability that has arisen from those things. This has been discussed with other City attorneys, and they plan to prepare a paper for all Boards and Commissions regarding the liability issue. Since the Zoning Board of Appeals does not hire and fire personnel, a lot of the liability that has been associated with the Housing Authority would not affect this Board. As long as the Board stays focused on its duties, and does not go outside of the scope of those duties as they are defined in the Code, there shouldn't be a problem with liability issues. The City will cover, indemnify and stand behind all employees, Board & Commission members, etc., as long as they stay within the scope of their duties. Additional written information will be forwarded to Board members once it is available. B. Sign Code: Lieser suggested that there be a presentation on the Sign Code for the benefit of new Board Member Krause. Lieser mentioned that she was on the Board when the Board worked on and implemented this Code and that it is difficult to allow violations to this Code. The signs in Fort Collins used to be 40' and 50' high. The Board worked very hard to minimize signs and come up with a stringent code that would avoid these types of issues in the future. The Beads sign was a great sign. However, the sign is prohibited by the Code and that is why Lieser voted the way she did. C. Planning and Zoning Board: After the Walmart discussion that was held during the past week, Lieser called Mayor Azari to discuss concerns regarding the actions of the P&Z Board. Mayor Azari was supportive of Lieser's comments and mentioned that she would come and talk to all of the Boards encouraging this type of feedback since Board Members are familiar with the rules and processes that govern Boards, etc. • ZBA Nov. 12, 1998 Page 9 Lieser mentioned that she thought the Zoning Board of Appeals was very focused on the Codes, etc.; that govern the Board and mentioned that Board Members should make extra effort to assure that the Board continues to work within those parameters. Eckman mentioned that the Board needs to make sure that they find a hardship when granting an appeal. There are times when a hardship can be "made up", especially when there is no harm or public detriment. He cautioned Board Members to pay close attention to the Code when determining whether or not there is a hardship. He encouraged Board Members to review Section 2.10 of the Land Use Code every once in a while and go over the criteria for granting variances. This will help assure that the Board stays focused. Stockover asked if a hardship should be referred to when the Board makes a motion. Eckman answered that the hardship should be identified. This a self -disciplining mechanism where the Board must verbalize the nature of the hardship and assure that it meets Code criteria before granting the variance. There are really three things that should be addressed in order for there to be a good record that would be supportable in case there should be an appeal: 1) what it is about the property that is unusual; 2) what the hardship is; and 3) that there is no detriment to the public good in granting the variance. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator