Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/14/1984ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes June 14, 1984 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 14, 1984 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Boardmembers: Walker, Lieser, Murphy, Johnson, Dodder, Szopinski, Thede. Staff Members Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Frazier Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 10, 1984, and Special Meeting of May 24, 1984, Approved as published A unanimous vote of the members to approve both the minutes of the regular meeting of May 10, 1984 and the special meeting of May 24, 1984 was taken. Appeal #1541. Section 118-95(A) by Fred Gardner, 2821 Remington - Denied. There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would allow a freestanding sign which does not have free air space, since it exceeds 42 inches in height, and is located within 50 feet of a driveway to be set back from the right-of-way line 3 feet instead of the required 15 feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The sign as erected is only 42 inches above the ground level at which the sign is located. This property has a very shallow area between the sidewalk and the parking lot and a slight grade change. This area provides the only aesthetically logical placement of the sign and does not block visibility of motorists. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. There is plenty of lot frontage available which means the sign could be placed further north so that it is more than 50 feet from the driveway. Another possibility would be to leave the sign where it is and make it higher so that there is free air space under the sign. The hardship is somewhat self-imposed since the petitioner erected the sign in violation of the code." Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained to the Board that the sign is 42 inches above the ground on which the sign sits, however the code says "it must have free air space between the height of 42 inches above the adjacent street elevation". There is about a 2-1/2'berm and the sign is on -2- June 14, 1984 top of the berm and therefore it is about 6 feet above the adjacent street elevation. Peter Barnes felt the reason the code reads "above street elevation" is because people could intentionally build 6 foot tall berms and put a sign on it to get their sign elevated without any code violation. Fred Gardner of Gardner Signs explained that the sign was designed so as to be 42 inches above grade. His interpretation of 42 inches above grade was 42 inches from the ground level which he interpreted as grade, to the top of the sign. Consequently he took out the permit with the full intention of complying with the code. Mr. Gardner tried to put it into perspective for the Board by describing a sign permit he had taken out in Broomfield. In Broomfield there is a lot more hills and grade level changes quite drastically in that community. In pulling out the permit in Broomfield there is a limitation of 7 feet above grade to the top of the sign. Grade level for that particular job was assumed to be the grade level on which the building sat. Consequently he had it in his mind that grade level was the level at which the building sits at 2821 Remington. There was no intention to defraud the code. Mr. Gardner doesn't agree that the hill should be described as a berm. He sees it as a change in level from the street. The parking lot and the building are at the same level as the hill. The street is the only depressed level. He feels it is an aesthe- tically pleasing sign. Mr. Gardner said he had brought his own photograph that shows a picture on the other side of the landscaped area. He said the picture will show that the sign in question does not impede traffic but in fact that the landscaping impedes traffic visibility. Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Gardner if the lot went far enough north where there would be space to put the sign so it would be the required 50 feet from the driveway. Mr. Gardner said it could go on the other side of the landscaped area but the problem lies with the fact that there is no curb cut at that location. The closest curb cut would be to the building to the north and Mr. Gardner thought that a sign in that location would be con- fusing. He said they had to move the sign a bit to the south because of underground utilities, sewer, gas and electrical. Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Gardner how long he has been in the sign business. Mr. Gardner an- swered, "All of his life." Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Gardner if this situation had ever come up before. Mr. Gardner answered that he has never had this problem before. Boardmember Dodder asked if he had never put a sign on a berm. Mr. Gardner said no that he had not. Boardmember Thede asked how long the sign had been up. Mr. Gardner said 3 months. Boardmember Murphy said that his code book was very specific saying "above the adjacent street elevation". Boardmember Murphy said it was fairly clear to him and he didn't quite understand. Mr. Gardner said that he has a code book and runs his business -3- June 14, 1984 by it and this whole thing was an oversight on his part. The reason it was an oversight was because they had never had a situation like this before. Mr. Gardner said that his interpretation of the code is that the sign not impede traffic visibilty relative to ingress and egress. In this situa- tion, he doesn't see it as a safety problem. Mr. Gardner apologized that an error was made. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy, Johnson, Dodder Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1542. Section 118-95(A) by Fred Frantz for Adcon Advertising, 1228 W. Elizabeth - Approved with conditions There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would allow an 87.75 square foot q per face ground sign to be located 4'8" from the right-of-way line instead of the 15 foot setback required when a sign containing no free air space is located within 50 feet of a driveway. This sign is within 36.5 feet of a driveway. --- Hardship pleaded: The owner currently has a freestanding sign for Town Square which is located in front of phase 2. He desires to remove that sign and replace it with a tenant ground sign, but wants it in front of the phase 4 building by the main entrance because the stores in that building have no exposure on Elizabeth Street and people don't realize the building is part of Town Square and which stores are located there. There is no place in front of this building where a sign would be 50 feet from a driveway, nor can a sign be set back 15 feet because of sidewalks and topography. This location is however, 59-1/2 feet from the two nearest -exit driveways, so the intent of not hindering traffic visibility by being at least 50 feet from a driveway is being satisfied. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the exit driveway locations don't change at some future time and that the sign is built in conformance with the drawing submitted. The extreme slope of the land directly behind the proposed location is a legitimate hardship which prevents the sign from being moved back the required 15 feet. Also, since the sign is more than 50 feet from the exit drives the intent of the code is met and there shouldn't be any traffic visibility hazards. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained the similarity of this variance and the prior variance. They are both from the same code section. -4- June 14, 1984 Fred Franz, petitioner, explained the confusion of the entrance at the MacDonald's side of the building. The ingress and egress is total confu- sion coupled with the fact that the buildings on the East have no exposure on Elizabeth and this particular sign would allow those tenants, as well as the entire complex, to receive their advertising value. The right-of-way in this instance is 10 feet in back of the curb to begin with. There is not 50 feet between the driveways in which to locate the sign. It would be impossible to locate the sign 15 feet from the right-of-way because of the sharp drop-off on the property. If they located the sign in the middle between the two driveways it would block the handicap access. Their objective was to hopefully fulfill the intent of the code and get the sign at least 50 feet away from exiting driveways. At the proposed point of installation they are 59-1/2 feet from either driveway. The driveway to the east has been designated as an exit only driveway. It is almost exclusively used by delivery trucks. Bob Crumvita, the owner of the property, reiterated what Mr. Franz had explained to the Board. Mr. Crumvita explained that the landscape has grown so much in eight years that it hides the existing sign. The existing sign leads people to believe that the entrance for the shopping center is the same as Mac Donald's. The tenants feel they are not getting fair exposure. Russ Otto, who rents the space for Champion Auto, explained that his customers have trouble finding him. Boardmember Dodder asked if the exit driveways were going to be changed in the future. Mr. Crumvita told him that they would not change. Boardmember Walker asked if the driveways were marked as for 'entrance' and 'exit'. They are marked. Boardmember Szopinski said he felt that the sign could be moved closer to the service driveway and closer to the access ramp. Fred Frantz pointed out the S curved public sidewalk that causes a problem with sign location. Boardmember Szopinski said that he would still like the sign moved further east toward the service driveway because there would not be as much traf- fic. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes foresaw the problem of vandalism with the sign being so close to the sidewalk. Boardmember Szopinski felt that was a mute point. He is more concerned with the traffic. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the sign should be in the center of the property and that the sign match the drawing that was submitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember John- son. Yeas: Lieser, Johnson, Szopinski. Nays: Murphy, Dodder. -5- June 14, 1984 Appeal #1543. Section 118-41(C) by Larry Michaud for Housing Rehab, 729 Martinez St. - Granted "--- The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family home in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The owner and petitioner propose to move a house onto this vacant lot. The lot is an existing lot, platted with only 50 feet of width. Nothing can be built without a variance and there is no additional land available to buy. --- Staff recommendation: Approval." Larry Michaud, petitioner, said that the reason the owners wanted the house set back on the lot so far is because they wish to have a solar house and there is a two story house next door that would block that from the south. Boardmember Murphy made a motion to grant the variance. Boardmember Dodder added the condition that the house dimensions reamain as stated. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy, Johnson, Dodder, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1544. Section 118-41(E) by William and Elva Griffith, 2812 East - borough Dr. - Denied There were no notices or letters returned. "--- The variance would reduce the required rear q yard from 15 feet to 12 feet for a single family dwelling in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner desires to construct a new home on this lot. The proposed covered patio extends into the required 15 foot rear yard. Through an error of their architect they were not aware of the problem until they submitted for a bulding permit. They have already purchased this lot and there is no more available land adjacent to purchase. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. The hardship is self-imposed in that it was designed in a way in which it doesn't fit on the lot. The house can be redesigned or straightened out on the lot. This would allow a little more room in the rear yard, so that some sort of covered porch could still be constructed, although it wouldn't be quite as large as the original proposal." There were no notices or letters returned. -6- June 14, 1984 William Griffith, petitioner, told the Board that this whole situation came about through an architectural error. The lot is an irregular shaped lot. It has been redrawn but they still need a variance. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Johnson, Dodder, Szopinski. Nays: Lieser, Murphy. Appeal #1545. Section 118-92(A) by City of Fort Collins, 720 City Park Ave. - Granted with conditions "--- The variance would allow one 16 square foot single -faced sign to be erected on the site of a multi -family development. The sign does not advertise the development but instead advertises a project equipped with City energy conservation devices. This type of sign is not classified as a development sign and therefore, not allowed in this zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The light and Power utility desires to publicize their "Hot Shot" program by indicating that entire developments are making use of it, and that it is a good program which anyone can participate in. This sign is very small and shouldn't be obtrusive. The sign would be taken down when construction is over, so it is temporary in nature. --- Staff recommendation: None." There were no notices or letters returned. Boardmember Thede asked how long 'temporary' was. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said it was his understanding that the sign would be there until the project is finished. In the future they would like them up at different projects where a variance might be needed also. Petitioner, Sharon Held for the City of Fort Collins Light & Power, passed a sketch of the sign to the Boardmembers. The Sign is a 16 square foot sign. She explained that Light & Power is very proud of this program. It is a free voluntary program and they are now focusing on multi -family developments. She told that recently the program has won three national awards. They would like the sign to let the public know that they are trying to maintain their rates. Boardmember Szopinski asked how long the sign would be up. Ms. Held said they thought six months would cover the duration of construction. The sign will be removed at the end of the project. Boardmember Dodder asked if they would come back to the Board for future developments. Yes, Ms. Held told the Board. She also stated that they have not had the sign built yet and they are more than willing to adjust it to make to it more compatible. -7- June 14, 1984 Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hard- ship stated with the condition that the sign be up for 8 months or end of construction whichever is less, and also must be the size of the plan submitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Boardmember Johnson said that he didn't see any hardship for this variance. He said the hardship is that the L & P Utility desires to publicize their "Hot Shot" program. A hardship is if the Zoning Ordinance is applied strictly to this piece of property, is this piece of property denied because of its uniqueness or any specific conditions, is it denied fair and equitable treatment that other pieces of property in town would enjoy. There is nothing specific or unique to this property, Boardmember Johnson said, so he is opposed to the property. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy, Szopinski. Nays: Johnson, Dodder. Appeal #1546. Section: 118-97(H) by Bill Kingsbury for DDA, Old Town Square. Granted with conditions "--- The variance would allow banners hung from lamp posts in the Old Town Square to be up for more than twenty days per year. Specifically, interchangeable, colored banners for specific seasons and special events would be up permanently. --- Hardship pleaded: The banners add color and a festive air to the Old Town area. In the winter especially, they'll provide relief from the buildings and dormant landscaping. The Old Town Square will be a unique and important part of Fort Collins, and the banners are a vital part of the area and give it flavor. --- Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that there can be no more than one banner pole per 3500 square feet of open lot area. This will ensure that a circus atmosphere does not develop due to large clusters and numbers of banners. In addition the banners must be maintained in a satisfactory condition and secured to the pole at both the top and bottom of the flag. Old Town Square will be a major attraction in Fort Collins, for local residents as well as out-of-town visitors. As such it will be a very unique pedestrian plaza and shopping area with its own identity and flair established to set it apart from other areas of the City. These banners will be a tasteful, colorful part of the character and mood of the Square. The spacing of the banners and their location mainly in landscaped planters will not violate the spirit of the banner provisions in the sign code." No notices were returned and the following letter was received. • -8- June 14, 1984 "TO: Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Fort Collins FROM: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Richard Beardmore, Chairperson RE: Old Town Associates Old Town Plaza Project, Fort Collins Zoning Variance for Banners On behalf of the Landmark Preservation Commission, I am forwarding this memo to relate to you the background of review and approval by the LPC regarding the incorporation of wind driven banners into the Old Town Plaza. Please note the attached OTA, Ltd. Memo to the LPC of December 2, 1982 regarding our initial review of this project. The attached character sketch was part of the OTA submittal with banners indicated on this very early character sketch so that the LPC could initially consider these as they relate to Historic Old Town. The LPC does now and did from this conceptual review support the appropriate incorporation of banners into this project." Our final approval of the specific graphics of these banners will most likely occur at our next LPC meeting in July. However, on October 19, 1983 the LPC did give final approval of the banners contingent on review of final graphics. And of course, we are aware that your concurrence is also required as pertinent to zoning regulations. As background to our approval, we support the concept for several reasons. These reasons include the maintenance agreement between Old Town Associates and the DDA, the organized placement of these within the plaza, the added color that will enhance the plaza, the dynamic visual interest and appeal that appropriately displayed graphics can add to an otherwise "static" plaza, and the controlled usage of these banners as also provided by the OTA Maintenance Agreement for improvements in the Public Right of Way. Therefore, based on the above the LPC was satisfied that justifiable concerns related to wind driven banners, namely timely maintenance, appropriate design, and controlled usage are mitigated by established review procedures, approvals, and the in place maintenance agreement. In summary, the LPC strongly encourages wind driven banners for this particular project, will continue to review and approve these banner details, and encourages the Zoning Board to grant a project specific E 10 June 14, 1984 variance to Old Town Associates, Ltd, to permit wind driven banners as approved to the LPC. Cordially, Land Mark Preservation Commission Richard Beardmore, Chairperson cc: Felix Lee Pete Barnes J. Reidhead G.W. Kingsbury J. Dewhirst/C. Smith" Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that Old Town Square is cur- rently under renovation/construction. Mr. Barnes pointed out a change that had been made since the rendering was given to the Board, banners or flags will have a mechanism that will secure the banner to the pole so that they don't wrap around the poles. The banners will be considered wind driven signs and are only allowed twenty days per year. Mr. Barnes explained that is the reason for needing a variance. Bill Kingsbury for DDA, petitioner explained that he is the petitioner because DDA owns the public area or 'plaza' area. He explained that this project was developed as a joint public private partnership in associateion with Old Town Associates. In that role OTA had the responsibility of designing both the buildings and the plaza. Mr. Kingsbury said he would like to turn the presentation over to Jim Reidhead of Old Town Associates. Jim Reidhead told the Board that he had a slide show to show how banners can be effective to provide animation and color and pedestrian interest that makes a downtown friendly to people. One of the problems they have dealt with in downtown Fort Collins is how to change the orientation of the downtown area from the automobile to people. Mr. Reidhead showed slides from all over the United States and parts of Europe where banners are used. Mr. Reidhead told the Board that maintenance is the most important aspect of a successful downtown area. The banners will be maintained so that they don't look tattered and worn. Mr. Reidhead said they felt these banners were a critical element for the project. Boardmember Dodder asked Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes how he came up with the recommendation of no more than one banner pole per 3500 square feet of open lot area. Mr. Barnes said that they felt there was not a lot of clutter in the area and they didn't want to see more than this amount. They determined the square footage of the pedestrian areas including alleys where there were some poles located, divided the number of poles they had into that and came out with one for every 3500 square feet. Staff felt that if they allow too many of these, the impact would be too great. -lo- June,14, 1984 Boardmember Dodder asked what kind of effect this would have on the rest of Fort Collins after Old Town put up there banners. Mr. Reidhead stated that he couldn't predict what other areas in Fort Collins would do. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes said he would like to comment that when they discussed the problem of whether or not they would start to go up all over town, justification might be that this is a pedestrian oriented plaza. Foothills Mall or Dellenbach Chevrolet are not pedestrian oriented. Boardmember Walker stated that he understood adding color to a pedestrian plaza however he has a real problem with the six banners along Mountain Avenue. He said it seems to him that having them along Linden Street would be fine, but six on Mountain Avenue which is not a pedestrian area is way too much. Mr. Reidhead said that Mountain Avenue is a very important thoroughfare and they consider Mountain Avenue the main entrance. It is intended to be an eye-catcher to attract. There are three banners in front of the new parking garage for the very same purpose, to attract people's attention. Boardmember Walker said then they get into advertising. He feels this is the point. The banners are not supposed to be advertising. Mr. Walker is concerned with the integrity of Mountain Avenue. Mr. Reidhead said they are advertising to the extent that they are saying, "This is a pleasant place to be, come on over!". He said it is the very same advertising that a tree is doing or a pot of flowers. Boardmember Walker said that he felt a tree was in character with Mountain Avenue, banners are not. Mr. Reidhead said he understood the point Mr. Walker was trying to make and he would say that trees have not historically been on Mountain Ave. They were introduced in 1976 and now seven years later they would like to introduce a new element. Boardmember Dodder said he was in favor of the variance and he thought they might give it approval with the condition that they review it in 12 months. Boardmember Thede said that would give them time to keep an eye on the maintenance aspect of it. Boardmember Murphy asked if the Board was suggesting letting the poles go up and then in a year asking them to come down. Boardmember Johnson asked if Jim Reidhead felt that the strict application of the zoning ordinance in this case denies him fair and equitable use of their land. Mr. Reidhead said he felt that the strict application, if you looked into the history of the ordianance, was to help prevent those strings of pennants often used by used car lots. Those have been over used and abused and become very tacky at best. Mr. Reidhead said that yes, strict application of this ordinance would prohibit optimum development of a pedestrian area. Boardmember Johnson stressed that he did not say -11- June 14, 1984 optimum, he said equitable. Mr. Reidhead then said yes, even equitable. Boardmember Johnson asked if their project would be denied something that other people that own property are allowed to do because of something unique and peculiar to their property. Who else is allowed to have perma- nent banners?, asked Boardmember Johnson. Mr. Reidhead said if you look beyond Fort Collins, you see that banners have worked in other cities. Boardmember Johnson said the Board's job is to uphold the integrity of the zoning ordinance and to make it fit our city. In Boardmember Johnson's opinion the Board is a quasi-judicial board and their job is to see if the zoning ordinance is unduly unfair to Mr. Reidhead's project. Mr. Reidhead said that with the peculiar situations of their property and the fact that they are trying to reverse a downward spiral of deterioration and that they have spent a lot of money to create an optimum environment for pedes- trian use and this is very important part of creating this element, and if they can't do it it would create a severe hardship because it would make the project less than it could be. Boardmember Szopinski said that he had been intimately involved with the Greeley downtown development and that the addition of the banners is going to be a plus to the development and the development wouldn't be complete without them. Boardmember Johnson said that he didn't disagree with that but he felt the Board had to find a hardship. The decision shouldn't be made because the Board feels it will be an improvement to an area Boardmember Dodder said the hardship is that Old Town can only put them up for twenty days and they want them up more than that. Boardmember Johnson felt everyone would like more than twenty days. Gene Mitchell of Mitchell & Co. told the Board that he didn't feel the Board would be setting a precident because there is no other area like this in Fort Collins and the Old Town project needs this flair to add integrity. Mr. Mitchell said that this project is a unique project and it needs every aid possible to be successful. Jane Tester appeared as a property owner on Linden Street and she said that she had no objections to the banners. Her only concern was handbills being posted on the light and banner posts. She had visited Boulder and thought their mall looked like trash. Bill Kingsbury of the DDA said that under the agreement with the DDA, Old Town Associates is responsible for the maintenance of the area. They have very strict covenants for the area. The handbills will not be allowed. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the banners be allowed for 18 months and review them at that time and that they limit one pole for every 3500 square feet. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Boardmember Johnson said he is •. • -12- June 14, 1984 still opposed to the variance and has the belief that the difference between a good or bad variance is that a good variance brings a disadvan- taged property up to the same standards that other propertys enjoy and that a bad variance gives special privilege to a property and elevates it above a position that other properties can enjoy. He feels this is a case of a special privilege being granted. He thinks the banners are great but feels it is a mistake for the Board to use a variance for this type of thing. He felt there is no hardship. Yeas: Lieser, Dodder, Szopinski. Nays Appeal #1547. Section 118-95(C) Granted with car Murphy, Johnson. Philip Collins, 816 E. Mulberry, "--- The variance would reduce the required setback for a 19.5 foot tall, 77 square foot per face freestanding sign from 28 feet to 6 feet. --- Hardship pleaded: The only place on the property to put a freestand- ing sign is in the island at the corner of Riverside and Mulberry. Because of clutter at the intersection from various street signs and light poles, the petitioner feels a sign of this size is necessary in order to achieve the desired exposure. --- Staff recommendation: Denial of the request to allow a 19-1/2 foot tall sign at this location. There is a valid concern regarding the clutter in the sign location however, and the proposed sign at the 17-1/2 foot height may be acceptable." There were no notices or letters returned. Philip Collins, petitioner, told the Board of the history of failing businesses at this locaation. Prior businesses have had signs that were approximately 13-1/2 feet high. The semi trucks that frequent this route are 13-1/2 feet high which makes the sign hidden from traffic that may stop in. The left turn lane is usually always backed up with semis. He feels that the reason for the other failing businesses is because they didn't get proper exposure from their sign. Mr. Collins took pictures that prove there is no visibility when parked at the train crossing or if semi trucks are in the turning lane. The smallest sign that Amoco makes is 19-1/2 feet high. Amoco representative, Ken Staley, said that if free air space of 6 feet is required, you could not cut the sign down. The 19 feet is needed on the height of the sign. a -13- June 14, 1984 Mrs. Collins told the Board how frustrating it is to open a business and no one comes to do business. She also told how the City landscaping on the island also blocks their visibility. Boardmember Johnson told Mrs. Collins that there was no doubt in his mind that they had a hardship but the Board also had to be concerned with the impact on fort Collins. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to grant the variance with the condi- tion that the sign not exceed 18 feet high. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy, Johnson, Dodder, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1548. Section 118-41(D) by Wanda Koch, 422 E. Prop.sect, Granted "--- The variance would reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 17.3 feet for an enclosed porch addition to a duplex in the RL zone. --- Hardship pleaded: The existing porch is already set back only 17.3 feet. The petitioner desires to put a small addition onto the west side of the porch. This addition will line up with the existing and will not be any closer to the property line. The addition will be a passive solar porch. Staff recommendation: Approval." There were no notices or letters returned. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that when Prospect was widened several times, it reduced the size of the front yards. Wanda Koch, petitioner, explained that she would like to make her house as energy efficient as possible. Boardmember Murphy made a motion to approve the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Lieser, Murphy, Johnson, Dodder, Szopinski. Nays: None. Appeal #1549. Section 118-11(definitions) by Terry Whalen for Osprey Homes Granted "--- The variance would allow a freestanding sign with free air space to be classified as a ground sign. Specifically, the proposed sign has a 2 inch indentation in the middle of the sign and this has been inter- preted as free air space by the Zoning Administrator. -14- June 14, 1984 --- Hardship pleaded: The petitioner and owner feel that this very small indentation adds to the aesthetic appearance of the sign and feel they shouldn't be penalized by having the sign classified as a freestanding sign, thus having to set the sign further back from the right-of-way. They feel the sign is a ground sign with some artistic design which is much improved over the existing signs used by Osprey. --- Staff recommendation: Denial. 2 inches is very small, but where do you draw the line? The same affect can be achieved with paint or some other method." There were no notices sent out. Terry Whalen, petitioner, explained that Osprey was trying to get their commercial intent across and still present a pleasant image. He said he didn't feel that this is a free standing sign. It is a ground sign. Carla Shantz, Osprey Homes, said that is just a design feature and the notch is so small that people driving down the street wouldn't even notice. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Murphy, Dodder, Szopinski. Nays: Lieser, Johnson. The meeting was adjourned.