Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/12/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 12, 1987 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 12 1987, at 8 30 A.M., in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roil call was answered by Boardmembers Lawton, Lieser, Thede, Barnett, Walker, Lancaster, and Coleman. Boardmembers Absent: None. Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 8 1987 - Approved as Published. _ The minutes of the January 8, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously approved Appeal # 1777 Section 118-95 (C) (1), by Mery Eckman for Adcon, 1845 N. College Avenue, Approved with Condition. ---The variance would reduce the required setback for a 40 square foot per face freestanding sign from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. The sign is for a Texaco station in the HB zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This sign was a replacement sign and was supposed to be a 5 foot by 7 foot sign. That was what was ordered. It wasn't until the City inspected the sign that anyone knew it was larger than 5 by 7. It is actually 5'10" by 7, and thus requires an extra 2 1/2 feet of setback. Moving the sign the required distance would result in it proiecting into the driveway and would be a hazard. ---Staff recommendation: None" No notices were returned: no letters were received. Boardmember Lieser abstained from discussion and voting due to a conflict of interest. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal. Petitioner Mery Eckman spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the Texaco Co. was updating its signs. The sign in question was a standard Texaco sign which the company described as a 5 x 7 sign. It actually measures 5110" by 7', but this was not discovered until after the sign was February ZBA Minutes Pape 2 installed. Mr. Eckman felt that the sign was not a traffic hazard in its present location, and moving it back 30 inches would be a potential hazard for campers and pick-ups. Roy Hall, owner of the Texaco station explained that the sign was a standard Texaco sign, and next size down would be a 3' x 5'. A sign that measured exactly 5' x7' would have to be specially manufactured. Boardmember Thede asked if other Texaco stations in town would be having the same problem as they went to update their signs. Mr. Barnes replied that they were all the same size but other stations would not necessarily_ need variances for the signs. Boardmember Thede said that she did not have a problem with the extra ten inches. Boardmember Walker said that the hardship was that someone made a mistake, and that the ten inches was not that big a variance. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that it was for this particular sign only. Boardmember Coleman seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Coleman, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal # 1783 - Tabled. Appeal # 1784 - Tabled. Appeal # 1786 Section 118-95 (P), by Bob Monger, of CBS/Gordon Sign Co., 1250 W. Elizabeth. Granted with Condition. ---The variance would allow the West Elizabeth McDonalds restaurant to have two freestanding signs when the code allows only one freestanding sign. Specifically, the variance would allow a 41.6 square foot menu board sign in addition to their main Elizabeth Street sign. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: In order to facilitate traffic circulation through the drive -up, the menu board must be located some distance away from the pick-up window. In order to achieve this, the sign can't be on the wall of the building, but needs to be freestanding instead. The existing menu board sign is too small, since new items are being added to the menu. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. This is a common variance request for drive -up restaurants and has always been granted in the past when the property has only one street frontage, as is the case here. No notices were returned: no letters were received. February ZBA Minuto • Page 3 Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that McDonald's already had a drive -up sign, but thev wished to build a larger sign to accommodate some new items on the menu. This is a common request for drive in restaurants. The proposed sign would not he visible from the street but would be visible from the property line. The existing menu board sign is violation of code because McDonald's never got a variance for it. Petitioner Robert Monger, of Gordon Sign Co., spoke in favor of the appeal. He said that the existing menu board sign is 4' x 4' , and was installed when the restaurant was built. The larger sign is needed for added items - on the menu. The new sign would be installed at approximately the same location. The sign would be internally lit and would have a separate speaker unit next to the sign. Boardmember Thede asked if there was a problem with the freestanding speaker in addition to the sign. She also expressed her concern that the new menu board sign was considerably larger than the existing 16 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Barnes stated that the sneaker would not be considered another freestanding sign. Also, in the past the Board had granted variances in the past for menu hoard signs larger than 16 square feet. Mr. Monger added that the proposed sign would be the same size as the menu board sign at the South College McDonald's. Boardmember Coleman pointed out that the requested variance was for a second freestanding sign. They were not requesting additional sign allowance, and the proposed sign was not going over their sign allowance. Boardmember hieser stated that the sign was not visible except from the driveway. She did not have a problem with the variance request. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated, with the condition that the variance was for this particular sign only. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lieser, Thede, Barnett, and Walker. Nays: None. Appeal # 1787 Section 118-95 (C) (4), by Tim Bourdon, 110 N. Howes - Approved with Condition. ---The variance would allow a 1.2.75 square foot per face freestanding sign to be located closer than 15 feet to an interior side lot line. Specifically, the variance would a sign for a dental office in the BG zone to be 2 feet from the south lot line. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is only 24 feet wide, so there is no way the sign can be 15 feet from both the north and south lot line as required. With Howes being one way now, there is a need to put a sign out along the street. The sign will be mounted on existing poles. ---Staff recommendation: Approval because of the narrowness of the lot." February ZBA MinutI • Page 4 No notices were returned• no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating, that the building is owned by the City as a part of Block 31. There is no way the code can be complied with because of the way the property line is situated. There is an existing pole on the property. Dr. Bourdon, petitioner, spoke in favor business was not visible because it was Howes is a one way street. He proposed property to mount a 3 foot tall sign 7 pole would be cut off. This would make Howes and Mountain Street. Dr. Bourdon City for this property. of the appeal stating that his surrounded by City property, and to use the existing pole on the feet off the ground. The excess his business visible from both has a three year lease with the Boardmember Lancaster asked what front setback requirement would be. Mr. Barnes replied that the sign could go right up to the property line. Boardmember Lieser thought there was a valid hardship because Howes is a one-way street and the business is surrounded by city property, making it hard to see. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated, with the condition that it be for this business only. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lieser, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal 11 1788 Section 118-95 (C) (4), 118-97 (C), by Ronn Frank, 1300 W. Drake and 2343 S. Shields - Approved with Conditions. ---The variance would allow two "For Sale" signs on the Raintree PUD to be 32 square feet per face instead of the allowed 6 square feet per face. The PUD is located in the RMP and the RL zones, and one sign is on Shields, the other on Drake. The variance would also allow the Shields sign to be located 5 feet from the north and south side lot lines instead of the required 15 feet. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property consists of 28 acres, so it is a large parcel of land. Six square foot signs would not be noticeable on this size of lot, especially since the signs are on two arterial streets where traffic goes by pretty fast. There are also a number of signs close by for the shopping center, which would also make it hard for people to notice small signs. The lot frontage on Shields is only 10 feet, so it is impossible to have a 15 foot setback. ---Staff recommendation: Approval of the request for the sign on Drake, approval for the request to allow the sign on Shields to he closer than 15 feet to the side lot lines, no recommendation for the 32 square foot size for the sign on Shields. The Board has granted variances in the February ZBA Minute Page 5 • past to allow signs larger than 6 square feet when there is a large acreage involved, but usually with a time limit condition. Three notices were returned• no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal. Raintree PUD wraps around the Raintree Shopping Center. Most of the property is in the RMP zone, but some is in the RL zone. The Board has considered this type of variance in the past and has given them some leeway on size, with a time limit on the variance. Mr. Barnes stated that the sign on Shields was too close to the street and would have to be moved back 15 feet if the variance was granted. Ronn Frank, petitioner, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he was part owner and a representative from The Group, the marketing agents for the property. He proposed to maintain the sign on the property until it was sold. Normally a 4' x 4' sign or a 4'x 5' sign would be adequate, but this property was being offered by two different companies, and more room was needed for this information. The property for sale is 28 acres with most of the frontage on Drake and a little on Shields. Mr. Frank said that he understood that the sign would have to be moved farther back from the street. Boardmember Thede asked about the time frame. She felt that granting the variance for 6 months to one year would be appropriate. Mr. Frank stated that the time frame for selling the property is unpredictable - much depended on market conditions. He stated that they hoped to have the property sold within a year. Mr. Barnes asked when the PUD would expire and if they planned to request a renewal. Mr. Frank stated that it expired in August, and if the property was not yet sold they would request a renewal. But he pointed out that even if the PIID expired, they would need to sell the land. Mr. Barnes recommended that the time frame be set at one year or upon expiration of the PIiD, which ever comes first. Boardmember Lancaster asked if it was common for someone to buy a PUD from a sign. Mr. Frank stated that he had been in the business for over 20 years and found that signage was a very valuable advertising tool. He stated that prospective buyers would drive by areas of town that interested them to see what was available. Adequate signage was necessary for the sale of the property. Boardmember Coleman asked if past variances of this type were granted because of the size of the parcel of land. Mr. Barnes replied that land size was the important factor in this case. The code requirements were more appropriate for smaller lots in residential areas of town, but did not adequately address situations such as this. Boardmember Walker felt that the variance requested would be reasonable given a time limit. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. 0 February ZBA Minutes Page b Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship of the size of the parcel of land, and the lack of visibility for a smaller sign, with the following conditions: 1) the sign on Drake be no larger than 32 so. ft., and no closer than 15 ft. from Drake Road 2) the sign on Shields be no larger than 32 sq. ft., and no closer than 15 ft. from Shields, 3) the signs be no closer than 5 ft. from the north and south property lines, and 4) the variance will be granted for one year or the life of the POD, whichever comes first. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lieser, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal 11 1789 Section 118-95 (C), by Steve Lind for Gardner Sign Co., 3350 Timberline Road, Approved with Condition. ---The variance would allow a 32 square foot per face ground sign which is located within 50 feet of an intersection (specifically, within 10' of an intersection) to be set back 0 feet instead of the required 15 feet. The sign is at the intersection of Timberline and Danfi_eld and would he the permanent I.D. sign for Timberline Business Park. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner would like the sign to be as close to the intersection as possible. The right-of-way line on Timberline is 30 feet behind the edge of the road, so there is no visibility problem and the intent of the code is met. If the sign were at least 50 feet from the intersection, the code would allow a 0 setback, but since the sign would be back so far from the street, people may miss the turn. Therefore, the owner would like the sign placed closer to the intersection. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that if Timberline is widened, the sign he brought into compliance at that time. No notices were returned; no letters were received. Boardmember Lawton withdrew from the discussion and voting on Appeal #1789 due to a conflict of interest. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the right-of-way on Timberline is 30 feet behind the road, and because of the design of the sign it is required to be set back 15 ft. from the right-of-way. This type of variance has been considered before. Boardmember Walker asked if the City had any long range plans to widen Timberline. Mr. Barnes replied yes. Petitioner Steve Lind, of Gardner Signs, spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that Timberline Business Park needed a permanent ID sign. The owners planned to do a lot of landscaping around the sign. Mr. Lind felt that the sign would not be effective if it was set back 15 feet behind the right-of-way. People would not be able to see it in time to turn. Because the right-of-way line is 30 feet from the road, a 0 foot setback would still meet the intent of the code. February ZBA Minute Page 7 Boardmember Lieser commented that if the City widens the street all the work on the sign and landscaping would he wasted. Mr. Lind replied that the Everitt Companies understood that, and realized that they would be responsible for moving the sign if the road was widened. Boardmember Thede asked what options they had other than a groundsign. Mr. Lind replied that a freestanding sign was an option but most often denoted a retail establishment. The Everitt Companies felt that a groundsign conforms more to good taste, and gave the type of image they wanted for the business park. He stated that the sign will be 30' back from Timberline, which meets the intent of the Code. Boardmember Walker was concerned that the sign would be only 10" from Danfield Court. Mr. Barnes replied that the code required a 15 ft. setback from Timberline, (which runs perpendicular to the sign), but the setback from Danfield was not specified by code. Also, Mr. Rarnes felt that the 10' setback would not hinder visibility there. Boardmember Walker felt that the variance request was departing significantly from the code requirements. He wondered if it was being modified excessively. Mr. Barnes replied that this was less of a modification than a past variance on Lemay Avenue. He pointed out that the proposed sign would be setback 30 feet from the street. In comparison, the right-of-way line on South College Avenue is 5 feet from the street. A 15 ft. setback would put a groundsign 20 ft. from the street, considerably less than the distance in this situation. Boardmember Barnett asked about utility easements. Mr. Barnes stated that a sign could be erected on a utility easement, however, it was at the owners risk. If the sign had to be moved it would be at the owner's expense. Stuart McMillan stated that the utilities were already installed in that area, and it would only be a problem if repairs were needed. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that if Timberline is widened, the sign would have to be brought into conformance or another variance obtained. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Coleman, Lieser, Barnett, Thede, Walker. Nays: None. Appeal # 1790 - Withdrawn. Respectfully submitted, Lloyd Walker, Chairman �30,4 Peter Barnes, Staff Support LW/PB/bb