Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/11/2006FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — May 11, 2006 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall II Phone: (H) 224-4029 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 11, 2005 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dana McBride Andy Miscio STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 13, 2006 meeting. Daggett seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO. Address: Petitioner: Zone: Section: 2551 — Approved 408 Remington Perry McCormac NCB 4.8(D)(6)(d) Background: The variance would allow a second story addition to be constructed directly on top of the existing first floor and line up with the north side wall which sits right at the property line. The variance would reduce the north side yard setback from the required 5 feet to 0 feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home was built in 1889 and the portion of the home that the owner would like to build on top of was built at a 0' setback. The owner would like to expand the second story over the first floor and keep in line with the existing wall. ZBA May 11, 2006 - Page 2 Staff Comments None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relative to the appeal. The home, in the NCB zone, is surrounded by commercial buildings. The front part of the home is a two story structure. Attached to the back and running along the north property line is a one story kitchen. The addition would create a second story above that portion of the home and blend in with the front part of the home's second story. Applicant Participation: McCormac noted the portion along the property line and a part of the original structure is the kitchen. It was remodeled in the 1950s. That design feature takes away from the historic integrity of the home. The home currently has only 1 bathroom and has very limited space for the family. He'd spoken to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and they tell him it has no historic value and does not come under the jurisdiction of the LPC. Their goal with this addition, besides creating more space for their family, is to have the back of the building match the historic aesthetics of the front of the building. Board Discussion: Donahue asked about the five foot versus a zero foot setback. Donahue wondered if the requirement was the same for commercial and residential. Barnes noted the adjacent commercial building had a five foot setback, and in this zone, the setback requirements are the same for commercial and residential. Dickson wondered if the proposal met fire code requirements. Barnes replied that a wall closer than 3 feet to a lot line is required to be fire rated. Barnes also noted no windows will be allowed on the north wall of the proposed addition. The Board wondered if the addition lined up with the adjacent commercial building and if he had spoken to the adjacent neighbors. McCormac said the affected property owners had received notice of the request for variance to be discussed at the meeting today. Pisula noted in the slide presentation that the adjacent commercial building had two small windows on their second level and if the windows did not open, the impact would be nominal and inconsequential. The Board noted commercial standards were being applied to residential property. They also understood that in the NCB zone, there is no Floor Area to Lot Area Ratio requirement —the owners could build on the whole lot. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2551 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Specifically the property in the NCB zone and next to commercial property is not as concerning as if it were next to residential property. The impact on the neighborhood is nominal and inconsequential since this particlular portion of the building is already at a zero setback and the new 2nd floor wall along the lot line on top of the existing wall will only be about 70 square feet. Donohue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Pisula Nays: None ZBA May 11, 2006 - Page 3 4. APPEAL NO. 2552—Approved Address: 3744 S. Timberline Road Petitioner: Bellisimo, Inc for Fox Meadows Office Park Owners Association Zone: E Section: 3.8.7(E)(10) Background: The variance would allow Suite 102 to have a flush wall sign on the west side of the building to be located on the exterior west wall of Suite 101 instead of on the exterior west wall of Suite 102. The code requires that the sign advertising Suite 102 must be located on the wall that directly abuts that tenant space, not on a wall that abuts a different tenant space. The number of signs proposed on the west wall will not exceed the total number of signs allowed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The architecture of the building makes it impractical to install a sign on the west wall that directly abuts Suite 102. The total number of west wall signs allowed by code is 3. The total number proposed is 3, so the intent of the code is met. Staff Comments: The architecture can be considered a hardship. Perhaps the Board may want to place a condition on the variance that the two signs on the west wall of Suite 101 be separated by a distance that is greater than that shown on the plans. Otherwise, the signs will run together. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relative to the appeal. The building has three tenants. This property is in the residenital neighborhood sign district, wherein an exterior wall sign must be located on a wall that directly abuts the interior tenant space of the business that the sign is intended to advertise. Suite 102, the middle tenant, has a gabled roof with windows, and there is no wall area abutting the space on which a sign can be hung. Hall asked if all signs had to be attached to the building. Barnes responded that in addition to the wall signs, one monument sign per development is allowed. Applicant Participation: Gino Campana of Bellisimo, Inc. did not have much more information to add to what was already shared by staff only that the signs are individual letters applied to the building and lit with soffit can lights. Board Discussion: Dickson did not see any problem with granting the variance as it seemed like the most logical method for addressing their signage needs. Donahue believed it would meet the equal to or better than justification. Also he believed it would be more aesthetically pleasing than if it complied with the code. Pisula believed it was a better alternative to a monument sign. Donahue made a motion to approve appeal number 2552 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted to have two signs on Suite 102 will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. Three signs are allowed by the code on the west wall of the building, and only three signs would be installed if the variance is approved. The issue is placement only. Dickson seconded the motion. ZBA May 11, 2006 - Page 4 Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Pisula Nays: None 5. Other Business: None The meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m. ;w/ig�h�t Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator