HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/10/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — July 10, 2008
8:30 a.m.
11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) II
11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 11
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 8:30
a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Bello
Ronald Daggett
Alison Dickson
Dwight Hall
Dana McBride
Jim Pisula
David Shands
EXCUSED ABSENCES:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Lynn Suess, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Bello made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 12, 2008 meeting. Dickson
seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula, Shands
Nays: None
Abstain: McBride
3. APPEAL NO. 2616 - Approved
Address:
1409 N. Lemay Avenue
Petitioner:
Daniel Golub
Zone:
RL
Section:
3.8.11(C)(1)
Background: The variance will allow a fence to be taller than 4' in the front yard. Specifically, the
code restricts the height of fences in front yards to no more than 4'. The applicant is proposing to
ZBA July 10, 2008— Pale 2
construct a 6' chain link fence in the front yard. The fence will extend approximately 30' beyond
the front of the house. The house is set back 79' from the street. Existing trees will partially block
the view of the fence from the street.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments: Since the fence is set back approximately 40' from the street in a zone which
only requires a 20' front setback for a building, and since the fence is of a transparent material, the
intent of the code to avoid a tunnel effect along the street is satisfied. The Board may determine
that this is nominal and inconsequential.
Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. Average lot size in the
RL, low density residential zoning district is approximately 8,000 square feet. This particular
property is approximately 4 %2 acres. The applicant is proposing to construct a fence only around
the house portion; the 6' high chain link fence would go from the north property line to the area in
front of the house. The fence ordinance limits fence heights which are closer to the street than the
front wall of the house to no more than 4'. The fence will be 49' from the street, and the fence
would be behind the trees along the front of the property and on the inside of the trees that are
along the south portion of the yard. The intent of the code is to prevent a stockade or tunnel
appearance along a streetscape, and the 4' fence can be of any material except barbed wire or
electrically charged fencing.
Applicant's Participation: Daniel Golub, 1409 N. Lemay Avenue. The applicant has a neurological
disability and has a service dog. Without the fence, the dog can jump and run away before he can
stop him. Golub said he based his request on ADA regulations.
Audience Participation: Loren Maxey, 1101 Clark. Maxey thinks Golub has done a great job of
cleaning up the property. He views the fence as unobtrusive; it would not impede the view
because it is set back an additional distance from the street.
Board Discussion:
Shands stated he felt the request was reasonable. Dickson stated it was nominal and
inconsequential because the property square footage and the setback are large. Bello asked if the
variance could be approved specific to this user; Barnes replied that it would be difficult because
the City would not be notified when the ownership is transferred. Hall stated that with the
exception of home occupation variances, variances are approved based on the property rather
than the occupant. He stated that, in his opinion, the uniqueness is the rural setting, the significant
setback from the street, and that a chain link fence is proposed rather than a tall privacy fence.
Pisula moved to approve Appeal 2616 for the following reasons: The granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted will
not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered 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 setback of the fence is 49' from the road, which eliminates any potential
for a tunneling effect on the streetscape. Because the property is so much larger than
the average property in this zoning district, the impact on neighbors is much reduced.
The fact that the proposed fence is a chain link allows visibility to the property. Hall
seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 3
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
4. APPEAL NO. 2618 - Approved
Address: 709 Stover Street
Petitioner: Jill Kuch
Zone: NCM
Section: 4.8(E)(4)
Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from
5' to 3.85' in order to allow the existing converted garage portion of the home to be demolished and
replaced with new construction of the same size and in the same location. The existing converted
garage is set back only 3.85' from the north lot line. The new construction will match the existing
building footprint, so the resulting setback will be unchanged from the current one.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments: Since the new construction will be one story and will exactly replicate the existing
footprint, staff believes that this request is nominal and inconsequential.
Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The NCM zone is one of
the old town zoning districts with a minimum 5' side yard setback as long as the wall height doesn't
exceed 18'. The existing portion of the house that will be removed is already at a 3.85' setback
from the north lot line. Applicant proposes to remove that portion of the house and construct a new
addition in its place with the exact same footprint. Even though the new addition will match what is
currently there, the code requires that a variance is required for all new construction that does not
comply with the code.
Applicant's Participation: Jill Kuch, 709 Stover Street. Kuch stated that the purpose of the appeal
is to make that portion of the house a more usable living space. Currently, the construction is
falling apart, and daylight can be seen through some of the wall sections.
Hall asked if it is on a concrete slab. Kuch replied, yes, it was a garage originally, but was turned
into living space. Bello asked if the neighbors had been approached regarding the new
construction. Kuch replied yes, that a neighbor was present today. There is a drive path in
between the two properties.
McBride asked if they were going to save the foundation or tear it out. Kuch responded that they
would work with the city to find out what is needed. She added that the slab is not cracking, and
they hope it can be saved.
Audience Participation:
Carrie Lamanna, 705 Stover Street, directly next to where the Kuchs want to build. Ms. Lamanna
and her husband view this proposal as an improvement to the property and have no problem with
it. She stated the Kuchs have made so many improvements to the landscaping and the structure
of the rest of the house that this seems part of the larger plan of continuing to improve the property.
The subject area is quite unusable, especially in the winter.
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 4
Harold Wilcox, 717 Eastdale Drive. Wilcox stated that an upgrade would be an improvement to the
property.
End of Audience Participation
Board Discussion:
Hall asked Barnes what the City's regulations are regarding unsafe or not habitable property.
Barnes responded that if a building is nonconforming (doesn't meet the setback or another
requirement) and the Building Department determines it is structurally unsafe or an imminent
hazard, the code allows the building to be rebuilt to its original location without the need for a
variance. However, this particular structure has not been found to be unsafe.
Bello stated that he would approve the variance based on the fact that they are making
improvements to the property. Hall stated it was nominal and inconsequential. McBride stated that
it as an improvement to an existing situation.
Dickson moved to approve Appeal 2618 for the following reasons: The granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted will not
diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered 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 large
distance between this building and the neighbors on the side of the applicant's house is so
great that it is not infringing on the space between the neighbors. Since it is an existing
structure that is being rebuilt on the same footprint and it has been there for so long, it is
inconsequential and an improvement to the property. Pisula seconded the motion. Appeal
2618 was approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
5. APPEAL NO. 2619 - Denied
Address: 717 Eastdale Drive
Petitioner: Harold Wilcox
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.7(E)(3), 4.7 fl(1)(g)
Background: The variance will reduce the required rear yard setback along the alley from 5' to 2'
for a new, 128 s.f. detached storage shed, and would allow the roof pitch of the shed to exceed the
maximum allowed 12:12 pitch. Specifically, the roof would have a pitch of 23:12.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is a substantial row of mature lilacs that would need to
be removed in order to place the shed at this location in compliance with the 5' setback. The
owner believes that there is no other feasible location for the shed. The owner desires to have a
storage loft in the shed, and in order to accommodate a loft with sufficient headroom without
building a wider shed, a steeper pitched roof is necessary.
Staff Comments: None.
ZBA July 10, 2008— Pa.ge 5
Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The code requires a 5'
setback from the rear property line and a roof pitch not to exceed 12:12 unless it matches the pitch
of the roof that already exists on another building or on the house. There is not a matching pitch
anywhere else on the property; therefore a variance is required for the roof pitch in addition to the
setback from the rear lot line along the alley.
Barnes showed slides of two other storage buildings in the same neighborhood with roof pitches
greater than 12:12. Bello asked if those buildings were compliant or noncompliant. Barnes
responded that they appear to be in compliance with the setback distance from the alley but are
not in compliance with the roof pitch. Bello asked if the building height determines if it is regulated.
Barnes responded that a building taller than B' and/or larger than 120 square feet is a regulated
building, including the roof height.
Dickson asked the reason for the roof pitch ruling. Barnes responded that the purpose, in part, of
the East Side and West Side Neighborhood Plan is to preserve the character of the old town
neighborhoods, and there are several minimal design standards. For instance, the walls have to
be either parallel to or perpendicular to the lot lines. You cannot have them off at angles. Some
houses in old town do have turrets on them with roof pitches greater than 12:12. The standard is
that you can't exceed 12:12, but if you already have an element of a building that exceeds it then
you can match that element. There are some Victorian type buildings in old town that have certain
elements of their structure that exceed 12:12.
McBride asked about the height limits. Barnes responded that the height limits are the same as for
houses; a detached accessory building that doesn't have habitable space like a storage shed can
be two stories high, not to exceed 20'.
Applicant's Participation: Harold Wilcox, 717 Eastdale Drive. Wilcox stated he had poured
sidewalks around the entire yard, so having to choose another location would mean he would have
to tear up existing sidewalks. He thinks the shrubs are at least 40 years old, and they are trying to
keep all the old vegetation they possibly can. To keep the setback at 5' would mean those lilacs
would have to be removed. Additionally, in spite of suggestions that they construct a two story
building, they feel it would cause an eyesore and have instead designed the building to be 17' tall.
The neighbors' properties across the alley are extremely deep, and those neighbors can't even see
this property from their homes. The neighbors don't have a problem with this appeal.
Hall asked if the location of the sidewalk is prohibiting putting the shed on this side of the shrubs.
Wilcox responded yes, and the shed would end up essentially in the middle of the yard. McBride
asked for the shed dimensions. Wilcox responded that it is 8' x 16'.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
McBride stated it appears there are options on the shed location that would meet the setback.
Dickson asked if the shed was 120 square feet and not taller than 6' could it be where it is
proposed without a variance. Barnes stated that was correct. Hall stated he felt it was a self-
imposed hardship, that he did not see anything unique about the property, and was having a
difficult time justifying it.
Shands stated he thought the applicant should be accommodated and the variance granted.
Daggett agreed. Dickson stated she didn't think it was a hardship, equal to or better than, or
nominal and inconsequential. McBride stated that a request to move the setback 3' is not nominal
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 6
and inconsequential, and it didn't meet any of the other criteria; therefore the board did not have
grounds to approve it.
McBride moved to deny Appeal 2619 for the following reasons: The applicant has not
satisfied the criteria necessary to justify a hardship variance because there is no hardship,
and this application is not viewed as creating an equal to or better than situation, nor is it
nominal and inconsequential. Hall seconded the motion. Appeal 2619 was denied.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula
Nays: Daggett, Shands
6. APPEAL NO.
2620 - Approved with conditions
Address:
321 E. Harmony Road
Petitioner:
Jamie Rideout
Zone:
HC
Section:
3.8.7(P), 3.8.7(G)(2)
Background: The variance will allow the existing off -premise sign at this location to be removed
and reconstructed approximately 15' further to the south on the same lot, and allow the
reconstructed sign to be the same size as the existing one — 97.5 square feet per side and 14'
overall height, instead of the maximum allowed 90 square feet per side and 12' height. New off -
premise signs are not allowed, and the reconstruction of the existing sign is considered to be a
new sign. The relocated sign will be the same height and size as the existing one, however, the
new sign will have a stone base instead of the existing wood sided base. The relocation of the
sign is proposed in order to accommodate a new sidewalk which is part of the Fort Collins
Supportive Housing development currently under construction directly abutting on the west side of
the subject property. The sidewalk will connect from the Fort Collins Supportive Housing property,
across the subject property and continue east to Hogan Drive. The existing sign is directly in the
path of where a straight sidewalk would be placed.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments: The City doesn't have a strong preference for requiring the sidewalk to be
straight as opposed to meandering around the sign, and therefore the sign can remain where it is
and wouldn't have to be removed and reconstructed. The Board should be concerned about
setting a precedent for allowing existing off -premise signs to be remodeled or moved. Staff doesn't
believe that the hardship criteria applies even though this is certainly a unique situation. The
Board would have to determine whether or not the 2' height variance and 7.5 s.f. size variance is a
nominal and inconsequential divergence from the code requirement, taking into account that it
doesn't diverge any more from the standard than the sign which already exists, and it will be set
back an additional 15' from the street.
Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. Beginning in the early
1980s, the city made several attempts to regulate billboards or off premise signs. When it enacted
the fourth code change, the city prohibited all new off premise signs. The applicant's variance is
requesting two things: (1) to allow an off premise sign since the removal of the existing sign
negates the fact that it was ever there; and (2) a variance for the size and height —measurements
cannot exceed 90 square feet per side and the proposed sign is 97.5 square feet per side. Off
premise signs are also limited to 12 feet in overall height, and the proposed sign is 14' in height.
The proposed sign is identical to the existing sign with regards to size and height. If the variance is
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 7
approved, the sign would be moved 15' further away from Harmony Road. The wood sided base
would be replaced with a stone base.
With the construction of the Fort Collins Supportive Housing Development, the City required that a
sidewalk connection be installed from that development all the way to Hogan. If the variance is
approved, the connecting sidewalk to Hogan Drive would be straight. If the variance is not
approved, the sign would stay where it is and the sidewalk would meander behind the sign. In
either case, an easement will be required from Nextmedia, the owner of this property, for the
sidewalk.
Hall asked if this sign will be affected when the sign code is enforced next year and what will
happen to this if the property is developed. Barnes responded that date only applies to on premise
nonconforming signs and added that if the property is developed, only one free standing or
monument sign per street frontage, per lot is allowed, and then this billboard would be removed to
make room for the onpremise sign for the development. Hall also asked if there was a mechanism
that would eventually force this sign to go away. Barnes responded no, not under current federal,
state or city laws.
Applicant's Participation: Troy Hammond, general manager of Nextmedia Outdoor. Hammond
requested that Nextmedia Outdoor, Inc. be listed as the formal petitioner, stating that Jamie
Rideout is the company's real estate manager. Hammond stated that he was approached by Ted
Shepard, the City's chief planner, to allow an easement for an access sidewalk for the Fort Collins
Supportive Housing Development. They are trying to be a good corporate citizen and also relocate
an existing asset to protect revenue sources.
Bello asked the applicant if they would be willing to downsize the sign to bring it into the allowable
standards. Hammond replied they would not be willing to do that because the sign would lose its
directionality and that would reduce their revenue by $600 to $1000 per month.
The board questioned the rationale for the easement if it was true that the city is not concerned
about the sidewalk's placement. Hammond stated that if Nextmedia were to grant the easement to
the city to build the sidewalk around the billboard, the sidewalk would be placed deep into the
property and that would diminish the property's overall value. Bello asked if it was possible that
Nextmedia would not grant the sidewalk easement. Mark Virata with the City's Engineering
Department said that it was possible, but the Supportive Housing Development would still be
granted a CO because they have provided funds in lieu of actually doing the improvement.
Hammond reiterated that Nextmedia is trying to be a good corporate citizen. The corporation has
allowed free access to their property during the entire construction of Fort Collins Supportive
Housing. Additionally, the corporation does provide shelters for the public transportation system,
and they are hoping to have a transit shelter abutting the property. The are not asking to delay
things but merely to hang on to current revenues and asset bases.
Audience Participation:
Joyce Newcomb, 4630 Venturi Lane. Newcomb stated that their home is to the left of the sign and
it can be seen out of their back windows. The movement of the sign back another 15' is going to
be a big detriment to the property and will diminish their property value. Barnes asked Newcomb if
it would help to have some landscaping behind the sign to screen it from their house. Newcomb
responded that it would have to be a large evergreen, perhaps a blue spruce. Hammond stated
that Nextmedia would commit to a value of up to $500 to plant vegetation that would impede
visibility and improve the visual aesthetics to the south of their proposed movement of the
ZBA July 10, 2008—Page 8
billboard. Newcomb stated that they would need to be a party to the planting to ensure it did block
the sign.
Bello asked Virata if Nextmedia had an obligation to honor the previous land owner's agreement
for an easement. Virata responded no, they did not.
Barnes stated that if the variance is approved, Nextmedia will need to apply for a sign permit. A
condition would be placed on the issuance of the permit that something would need to be in writing
signed by everyone stating that they have reached an agreement on whatever conditions the board
might place on the approval of the variance. Eckman stated this is a government decision and the
city will have to administer the conditions of the variance.
Mr. Newcomb stated that having the fire station with its big tower next door has also negatively
impacted their ability to sell their property. They have worked with the fire station to plant trees, but
at the point where they got to the right size to be an effective screen they cut the trees down to
build a parking lot.
End of Audience Participation
Board Discussion:
Bello stated it was his opinion that moving the sign back would be the best solution. McBride
asked if some of the funds collected from the Fort Collins Supportive Housing Development could
be assigned to the landscaping. Virata replied that after the sidewalk is built, any excess funds
collected from the Fort Collins Supportive Housing Development would be returned to them. Hall
stated that the best compromise seems to be to move the sign, build the sidewalk straight, and
provide some screening from the side for the Newcombs.
The location of the tree was discussed. Mr. Newcomb suggested that it be placed right across the
fence from their property so that they could water it over the fence.
Bello moved to approve Appeal 2620 for the following reasons: The granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted will not
diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered 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. A condition is placed on the
variance approval that Nextmedia work to their best efforts to provide vegetative screening
in the form of an evergreen tree close to the proximity of the Newcomb's property with a
maximum dollar amount of $500.00 and whatever can be done with the trees that are being
relocated on the fire house property. The tree is to be located where the future growth of
that tree would screen the sign, but doesn't necessarily have to do that at its initial planting,
and to be located where the parties agree. There is an additional benefit because the
sidewalk that is required for the Fort Collins Supportive Housing Development would be
better located in front of this sign and will be constructed in a straight line rather than
having to go around the sign, and it serves the community and the transportation needs of
the disabled individuals of that residence in a better way. Shands seconded the motion.
Appeal No. 2620 was approved with conditions.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
ZSA July W, 2008— Page 9
7. APPEAL NO.
2617 — Approved with condition.
Address:
2120 — 2268 E. Harmony Rd.
Petitioner:
John Mountjoy
Zone:
HC
Section:
3.8.7(E)
(NOTE: Discussion for Appeals 2617 and 2621 were combined since they are identical requests
for abutting properties).
Background: The variance will allow the Harmony School Shops commercial shopping center to be
exempted from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District regulations, and instead be subject to
the sign code regulations which apply to much of the commercial development which is located
along major arterial roads, including most of the development along Harmony Road. The applicant
believes that this would create a fair and equitable situation by allowing this development to be
subject to the same sign regulations which apply to the commercial developments to the east, west
and south.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments: Exempting this development from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District
regulations is similar to amending the boundaries of the Sign District map, which is also similar to
amending the boundaries of the zoning map. To approve a zoning map change, the decision
maker must find that the amendment is:
1) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property,
2) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land,
3) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, and
4) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
City staff had intended to pursue a formal boundary change to the Sign District map as part of an
upcoming Harmony Corridor Plan amendment. The change would have taken this property out of
the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The possible Plan amendment has been delayed, so
the applicant is pursuing a variance at this time which has a similar affect as would a formal map
boundary change.
Staff believes that the proposal satisfies the 4 criteria cited above. Because of the change that has
occurred by a previous amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan allowing the Front Range Village
development in lieu of an office/industrial development, and since Front Range Village is not
subject to the Neighborhood sign district regulations, the proposed variance may be considered to
be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and may
qualify as a hardship given the inequity that exists between competing developments in the same
block.
Staff suggests that if the Board decides to grant a variance, a condition be placed on it requiring
that any signs on the north side of the buildings or development continue to be subject to the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District regulations since such signs would be visible to the
residential properties to the north.
ZBA July 10, 2008— Pa.ge 10
APPEAL NO.
2621 - Approved with condition.
Address:
2310-2580 E. Harmony Road
Petitioner:
Gino Campana
Zone:
HC
Section:
3.8.7(E)
Background: The variance will allow The Pads at Harmony retail and commercial development to
be exempted from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District regulations, and instead be subject
to the sign code regulations which apply to much of the commercial development which is located
along major arterial roads, including most of the development along Harmony Road. The applicant
believes that this would create a fair and equitable situation by allowing this development to be
subject to the same sign regulations which apply to the commercial developments to the east, west
and south.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments: Exempting this development from the Residential Neighborhood Sign District
regulations is similar to amending the boundaries of the Sign District map, which is also similar to
amending the boundaries of the Zoning map. To approve a zoning map change, the decision
maker must find that the amendment is:
1) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property,
2) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land,
3) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, and
4) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
City staff had intended to pursue a formal boundary change to the Sign District map as part of an
upcoming Harmony Corridor Plan amendment. The change would have taken this property out of
the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The possible Plan amendment has been delayed, so
the applicant is pursuing a variance at this time which has a similar affect as would a formal map
boundary change.
Staff believes that the proposal satisfies the 4 criteria cited above. Because of the change that has
occurred by a previous amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan allowing the Front Range Village
development in lieu of an office -industrial development, and since Front Range Village is not
subject to the Neighborhood sign district regulations, the proposed variance may be considered to
be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and may
qualify as a hardship given the inequity that exists between competing developments in the same
block.
Staff suggests that if the Board decides to grant a variance, a condition be placed on it requiring
that any signs on the north side of the buildings or development continue to be subject to the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District regulations since such signs would be visible to the
residential properties to the north.
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 11
Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the applications. Both of these properties
are new commercial developments on East Harmony in the HC Harmony Corridor Zone. In 1994,
the city adopted the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and properties were placed in that
district pursuant to a neighborhood sign district map created to define the boundaries of those
properties that would be in the neighborhood district and those that wouldn't be. The intent of the
Neighborhood Sign District was to further regulate the size of signs for commercial developments
that were in predominantly residential areas or abutting residential properties. Sign district
regulations primarily deal with the size of wall signs that are allowed and the number and size of
monument signs allowed along the street. The map was developed based on the City's estimate
of what would occur in some of these areas based on zoning in place in 1994 and what was
already developed. The city rezoned the entire city in 1997 and adopted a new Land Use Code,
but rolled the sign code over as is. The neighborhood sign district map was also rolled over.
Front Range Village as well as the shopping center with the Cinemark Movie Theater, restaurants,
and First National Bank are not in the Neighborhood Sign District. After 14 years, the city now has
the benefit of seeing how the Harmony corridor has developed and what is anticipated in the
future. The pocket along Harmony that encompasses Harmony School Shops and The Pads at
Harmony are in the Neighborhood Sign District. The applicants have indicated that because of that
there is an inequity between what these commercial developments are allowed and what other
developments around these properties are allowed.
Bello asked if there are any height restrictions on signs in the nonregulated areas like Harmony
Village. Barnes replied that the limitation is 7' for letters or a cabinet. Dickson added that the sign
code is self-regulating in that it is regulated by the square footage of the building frontage along the
street. Typically, 2 square feet of signage per 1' of building frontage is allowed. Pisula asked
about the Safeway a mile west which abuts to a residential neighborhood. Barnes stated that it is
in the Neighborhood Sign District.
Applicant's Participation:
Appeal 2617: John Mountjoy, 209 South 19'" Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. Mountjoy stated
there are two issues: (1) the market is very competitive and advantages are needed when
competing for the same consumer; and (2) all developments are required to go through a very
strenuous development process with development standards for architecture, setbacks, light
screening, parking lots, etc. All developers paid the same money, but the disparity is the available
marketing of the properties based on allowable signage sizes. To provide an example, 24 Hour
Fitness is a 36,000 or 38,000 square foot tenant. Their sign is smaller than the transit stop signs in
front of his property. Mountjoy's request is on behalf of the tenants who are requesting that they
be able to market their products in a first-class manner like the product they've produced, and be
competitive with adjacent commercial developments which aren't in the neighborhood sign district.
Appeal 2621: Amy Johnston, 3702 Manhattan Avenue. Johnston is employed by Gino Campana.
She stated there are seven buildings at The Pads at Harmony and between 2 to 5 tenants in each
building. Their sign allocation is split up based on their leasable square footage. Some tenants
have only 19 square feet for all of their elevations which means they can only put 8 square feet on
the front and 8 square feet on the back. It is a hardship because some competitors very close to
The Pads at Harmony are allowed more advertising signage than we are.
Gino Campana, 7303 Streamside, Fort Collins. Campana asked Barnes to review a slide which
showed the minimal size of some of the signage. He did state he would compromise and agree
that the sign allowance is adequate on the north side, but it would be very helpful to have larger
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 12
signs on Harmony. He stated he appreciated Barnes' excellent presentation, and the timing is
appreciated as well as the tenants are spending the dollars on signage now.
Hall asked Mountjoy about his signage needs on the north side of his property. Mountjoy
responded that the only type of sign on the north side is directional signage, address signs, and
delivery signs. There is no need for advertising signs on that side of the property. Bello asked if
Mountjoy wanted the same signage on the north side of the free standing building that is on the
south side. Mountjoy stated that he would request any restrictions on the variance to be put in
place on the north side of the larger buildings that abut the residential areas and that advertising
size signage could be included in the variance on the interior portions of the buildings where retail
faces retail. There is another pad for a 6,000 square foot building. The side of that building which
faces the mobile home park and the side facing the neighborhood directly to the north do not have
to be included in the variance. Regarding The Pads at Harmony, Barnes stated that he felt the
north side signs on Campana's buildings should be allowed to be the same size that are allowed
right now under the Residential Neighborhood Sign District for the Harmony School Shops-24"
high letters.
Hall asked Barnes if the granting of these variances would change the sign code. Barnes
responded that they are only asking to be taken out of the Neighborhood Sign District. There are
no administrative changes.
Bello moved to approve Appeal 2617 for the following reasons: The granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good. In the context of the surrounding
neighborhood and the changes that have occurred along Harmony Road, the granting of
this appeal is nominal and inconsequential. The proposal as submitted will not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered 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. Further, a restriction is placed on the
variance that the residential sign code remain in place on the north side of the buildings
that face the residential properties. Shands seconded the motion. Appeal 2617 was
approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
Barnes asked the board to consider his recommendation regarding The Pads at Harmony.
Because of the classification under the development codes, letter height is limited to 18" high at
The Pads at Harmony whereas the Harmony School Shops development is allowed to have 24"
high letters. Barnes asked if the Board was opposed to allowing The Pads at Harmony to have the
same regulations that apply to the Harmony School Shops on the north side.
Bello moved to approve Appeal 2621 for the following reasons: The granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good. In the context of the surrounding
neighborhood and the changes that have occurred along Harmony Road, the granting of
this appeal is nominal and inconsequential. The proposal as submitted will not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered 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. Further, a stipulation is made that the
north side of The Pads at Harmony adhere to the residential sign code with the 24" letter
height and the 30" logo height criteria rather than what's existing today. Hall seconded the
motion. Appeal 2621 was approved.
ZBA July 10, 2008— Page 13
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
9. Other Business:
Barnes reported that he, along with Hall and McBride, attended the City Council work session on
Tuesday, July 8`h for the Council's periodic Zoning Board of Appeals review. One concern
expressed by Council was with the perception that the Zoning Board of Appeals was approving too
many variances, but after explanation, there was a greater comfort level with the Board's
decisions.
Meeting adjourned at 11:43 a.m.
i� A ak4-LI-
D all, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator