Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/10/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 10, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth, Diane Shannon and William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keating STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Jenny Nuckols, 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 May 13, 1999 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2256: -- Approved Address: 621 LaPorte Avenue Petitioner: Edmund Secor and Susan Greene, Owners Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) zBA June 10,1999 Page 2 Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 8' to 5.8' in order to allow a gable roof on the east elevation of a proposed addition. The top of the gable is 23' high. 18' is the maximum height allowed at the 5' setback. Every 2' over that requires an additional 1' setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The new addition lines up with the existing house at 5.8' from property line. Proposed gable is to provide interior clearance over staircase. Gable continues architectural character of existing home. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. The slides shown were of the existing elevations, property lines and the location of the proposed gable addition. Nuckols mentioned that at the east elevation, the proposed gable would be 23' high above grade. Slides were viewed looking to the north and Nuckols noted where the existing portion of the home would be removed and the proposed gable added. Breth asked about the neighboring property in regards to the setback of that home and its relation to the applicants home. Nuckols responded that she did not know, but perhaps the applicant would have that information. Shannon queried to Peter Barnes if there would be a problem with density after the proposed modifications. Barnes said that in that particular zoning district, there is a lot area to floor area ratio that they would be in compliance with. Barnes also stated that the total floor area when completed would not pose a problem. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Edmund Secor, addressed the Board. He responded to the question posed by Breth to Nuckols regarding the neighboring property. Secor said the back corner of the neighbors' house is approximately even with the back corner of the original house on his property. Secor explained that he was trying to design his addition architecture to reflect the same style as on the original house. Secor elaborated that at the time of his design conception, he was unaware of any height restrictions. He noted that without the proposed gable, the headroom at the stair landing is barely the required 6'8" and the new gable would be much more attractive. • • ZBA June 10, 1999 Page 3 Secor presented a drawing of what the proposed gable would look like. Referring to the drawings, Shannon asked the applicant about the apparent use of different materials than what was on the original house. Secor responded that he chose to use siding instead of stucco as on the original house, citing reasons of expense and that continuing with the stucco would make the east side of the house one large plane of stucco. He does intend to use the same shingle detail on the addition as is on the original house. Stockover asked the applicant for clarification of the headroom problem. Susan Greene brought forth a model and presented it to the Board. She demonstrated where the problem of the headroom arises. Shannon asked Greene if the space on the second floor was useful space. Greene responded that it was just attic storage area. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shannon stated that it appears the applicants have done a great deal to improve the property and the situation of having a narrow lot does exist. Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal 2256 due to the hardship created by a narrow lot. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Stockover, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2256 was approved. 3. APPEAL 2257: -- Approved Address: 3519 Richmond Drive Petitioner: Shaw Sign & Awning, Sign Contractor Zone: NC Section: 3.8.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would allow a single -faced 32 sq. ft. sign to be located along West Horsetooth Road for the new Associates in Family Medicine bulding, instead of along Richmond Drive as required by the Code. This is in the Neighborhood Sign District wherein one such sign is permitted per street frontage. Schrader's Country Store at the • • ZBA June 10, 1999 Page 4 comer of Horsetooth & Shields currently has the allowed ground sign along Horsetooth. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Proposed location would provide visibility on Shields, as well as Horsetooth. Otherwise, sign would be adjacent to residential neighborhood along Richmond. Thi; PUD has been developed over many years and the allowed signage was used by those who developed their lots first. That left no ground signage availability to those currently developing. Staff Comments: Barnes stated that this particular PUD, or overall development plan, was developed over a number of years ago. The Sign Code was amended in 1994. This amendment restricted these types of developments in the Neighborhood Sign District as to the number of signs they could have along streets. Prior to that, each spot could have a sign along a street. As an example; a shopping center that had 10 lots with a building on each lot, each could have their own freestanding sign regardless of what street they were on, so there could be 10 signs along one street. That was changed in the Neighborhood Sign District so the entire development, depending on its size, the development could have either one or two signs per street. Due to the size of this particular planned development, the Market at Horsetooth Commons, they would only get one sign per street. The buildings developed there previously were prior to the code change. The Petitioner's Statement of Hardship refers to this issue when stating that the signage was used by those who developed their lots first. Nuckols provided slides showing the construction site of Associates in Family Medicine and the streets; Richmond Drive, Horsetooth Road and Shields Street relative to the construction site. Nuckols noted the approximate location of the proposed sign. She showed where the sign would have to be located along Richmond Drive to be in compliance. Nuckols also mentioned that there is a residential neighborhood to the west and a private school to the north. Slides were viewed of the current businesses that are utilizing the sign allowances along Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. Applicant Participation: Applicants, Dr. David Jinich and Shaw Sign Company representative, Marie Locke addressed the board. Locke stated that this new building for Associates in Family Medicine would be an emergency care center that would need to have visibility from both Shields and Horsetooth. She said one of the primary concerns of the Associates in Family Medicine is that if their sign had to be located along Richmond Drive, clients would not be able to find them if they were approaching from Shields Street. Another concern is the placement of the sign along Richmond Drive and how that street backs to a neighborhood area. • ZBA June 10, 1999 Page 5 Stockover asked the applicant, Dr. Jinich, who their clientele would consist of. Jinich responded that as family physicians, they would be providing care for a large, diverse population in this community ranging from babies to a significant geriatric population. This will be a convenient care facility, similar to what the hospital has for after hour care where patients can come in without an appointment. Jinich's concern was that with the geriatric patients in particular as they may have a harder time driving and visualizing where they need to go. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shannon stated that she thought the purpose of a sign was to see it and use it for directional information. She felt that the proposed sign was well located. Shannon asked Barnes if there would be a problem with anyone across the street of the proposed sign. Bames responded that there was only a church and the sign would be directly across from their parking lot. He mentioned that the neighborhood on the south side of Horsetooth probably would not be able to see the sign at all. Shannon reasoned that if someone really needed to find this business, she would think they would want a visible sign that shows where to go. Breth made a motion to approve appeal 2257, allowing the sign for Associates in Family Medicine to be located along Horsetooth Road and that it be conditioned on the sign that was submitted with their application package. In regards to the motion, Barnes asked the Board if they might want to consider adding that this sign would be the only one allowed on Richmond Drive. Shannon asked Barnes if that would mean that they could not have a sign on the actual building itself. Barnes replied that they could have one sign per exterior wall, so they could put signs on the building along any of the four walls where the PUD allowed signage. After some clarification by Barnes, Breth amended his motion to include; no other freestanding signs will be allowed on Richmond Drive as long as this sign remains up. Shannon seconded the amended motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Stockover, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2257 was approved. ZBA June 10, 1999 Page 6 4. Other Business: A. Board Vacancies: There was a brief discussion regarding Board vacancies. Barnes stated that he believed the following Tuesday, June 15, 1999 there would be a City Council meeting that would be filling the vacancies on Boards and Commissions. He didn't know if all the positions would be filled due to the fact that not all the applicants may be suitable for this Board. He hoped that this Board may have at least two new members by the July meeting. Barnes mentioned that Delynn Coldiron may be absent from the next ZBA meeting on July 8. Stockover said he will be absent from the August ZBA meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator