The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/08/2016 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Summary Agenda - Regular MeetingHeidi Shuff, Chair Daphne Bear, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 2016 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA160037 Address: 408 Wood Street Petitioner/Owner: Diane Reiser Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(3) Project Description The variance request is to allow an increase of the rear floor area an additional 71 square feet. The maximum floor area in the rear half of the lot is 808.5 square feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA160038 Address: 113 S. Whitcomb Street Petitioner/Owners: Catherine & Dylan Rogers Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2) Project Description The variance request is to increase the allowable floor area for the lot an additional 774 square feet; the maximum floor area is 2,500 square feet. This request also increases allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot to 2,377 square feet; the maximum allowed is 990 square feet. The existing floor area in the rear half of the lot is 1,695 square feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 December 8, 2016 3. APPEAL ZBA160039 Address: 121 E. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Marge Brodahl: The Group Inc. Zoning District: D (Downtown District) Code Section: 3.8.7(M)(1), 3.8.7(M)(4)(a), 3.8.7(M)(4)(c), 3.8.7(M)(4)(d) Project Description The variance request is to allow an Electronic Message Center sign, approximately 7 square feet, to be displayed in the ground floor window of the building. This request would require the following variances: 1) Allow the sign’s message to be animated 2) Allow the message to change more than once per minute 3) Allow the changing message to scroll 4) Allow the message to display more than a single color, value, and hue with a single color background 5) Allow the electronic message center to be 100% of the total sign face area; the maximum allowed is 50%. 4. APPEAL ZBA160040 Address: 3420 Timberwood Drive Petitioner: DaVinci Sign Systems Owner: Harmony Technology Park, LLC Zoning District: H-C (Harmony Corridor) Code Section: 3.8.7(G)(6) Project Description The variance request is to allow a second monument sign along Harmony Road. The Land Use Code limits one (1) ground sign along the street frontage. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT ANDERSON ASSOCIATES ______________________________________________________ ARCHITECTS / ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC Diane Reiser: Proposed Addition to 408 Wood Street - Allowable Area Calculation Allowable Area Calculation excluding the 2.64 foot “Grant of Easement Recorded June 2, 2014 Lot size: 35 X 140 = 4900 X .25 = 1225 s. f. Plus 1000 s. f. Added allowable with detached garage 250 s. f. _______ Total 2475 s. f. Proposed Areas Existing house: 24 X 24 = 576 s. f. Addition: 26 X 44 =1144 s. f. Added Kitchen: 2.5 X 16 = 40 s. f. Added Garage: 18 X 20 = 360 s. f. Total Proposed: 2120 S. F. < 2475 s.f. O.K. Rear half of lot Calculation: 140 / 2 X 35 = 2450 X .33 = 809 s. f. House Addition at Rear Half: 20 X 26 = 520 Garage: 18 X 20 = 360 Total: 880 s. f. > 809 S. F. No Good Allowable Area Calculation including the 2.64 foot “Grant of Easement Recorded June 2, 2014 Lot size: (35 + 2.64) X 140 = 5270 X .25 = 1317 s. f. Plus 1000 s. f. Added allowable with detached garage 250 s. f. _______ Total 2567 s. f. Proposed Areas Existing house: 24 X 24 = 576 s. f. Addition: 26 X 44 =1144 s. f. Added Kitchen: 2.5 X 16 = 40 s. f. Added Garage: 18 X 20 = 360 s. f. Total Proposed: 2120 S. F. < 2567 s.f. O.K. Rear half of lot Calculation: 140 / 2 X (35 + 2.64) = 2635 X .33 = 870 s. f. House Addition at Rear Half: 20 X 26 = 520 Garage: 18 X 20 = 360 Total: 880 s. f. 880 about equal to 870 Request a variance allowing you to add the 2.64’ to the lot width for the purpose of the Allowable Area Calculation Respectfully submitted: Anderson Associates Architectural Engineers, LLC Dick Anderson – Architect 422 EAST OAK STREET FT. COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 • (970) 484-0306 Written Statement: November 8th 2016 RE: 113 S. Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Addition Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeal, We are writing to seek a variance from the floor area ratio for our single family home at 113 S. Whitcomb St. Fort Collins CO 80521. Our lot falls in the NCM zoning area and that for lots between 6,000 and 10,000 sqft. (and mine is 6,000) that we would be allotted 2,485.75 square footage. We are respectfully requesting to increase our square footage on the main floor by approximately 216 sqft. and the square footage on the top floor by approximately 480 sqft (see enclosed plans.) ** Literally the new design (see attached) would only add onto the existing footprint around 128 sqft. in front of the garage, but still staying behind the front of the home - approximately 7-10feet in length out from the garage on the driveway and 16 wide. We have been in our home since 2005, and have grown to be well woven in the fabric of the community and surrounding neighborhood. We are a growing our family and day to day experience a extreme lack of storage in this home (i.e. no coat closet) with our situation on Whitcomb - the current floor plan and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms are no longer functional for our needs. We are looking to increase the size of our current property to solve many issues that it presents us with day to day: • Currently we have very little useable backyard space, our lot is very shallow, as our home was built toward the back of our lot and an approval of the request would alleviate the use for future potential owners to need additional storage structures in the small back yard space (we currently have a shed that takes up some of this small 13ft space) and would allow the property to be more functional, more desirable/and functional for a family and for future potential owners. • We need another bedroom/bathroom and more storage, currently our property has a small shed out in the 13’ backyard space behind our back patio door. An enlarged garage with some minimal storage underneath, another upstairs bedroom/bath and connecting hallway/mudroom would be an effective solution to our dilemma. • These plans have been drafted by John Dengler, local here in our city and were fully approved by the Landmark Preservation Council, a significant component of this approval was noted in reference to the physical condition or circumstance on the lot shape that our current home was constructed. Roughly 13’ between the back side of the house and the fence and less with our older shed. See attached. • Our subject lot is more unique in that it’s very shallow lot - and naturally the shape of the lot is beyond our control. With the context to the rest of the neighborhood it’s a challenging shape – verses having any depth to it. The original structure has a considerable front and side yard, with barely any rear yard. Again being smaller and more shallow in comparison and context of other lots in the neighborhood - this proposed improvement would allow us to be able utilize the already small yard – by allowing us to remove the shed. • Boarding an alleyway on the south side of the property, this limits any growth on the south portion. • We have already alleviated any storm water concerns with that department as well. • At the time this home was originally built room designs and layout were functional for another era and current lifestyles needs of the typical buyer today make some Old Town properties considerably challenging. • Where the current front property pins are located they are actually -inset from sidewalk (see survey) as the subject home was originally built toward the back of the lot. As the property pins do not go to the sidewalk, the lot visually appears to be one size, but the actually FAR is calculated less, as it’s from the front pins, that are not the true corners of where the lot meets the sidewalk. The lot would be larger if they were to the sidewalk – so the current FAR is not being calculated not from the visual lot but from pins. • The referenced addition will utilize all of the same finished siding materials as the existing home. • The older/current garage footprint will be basically kept the same with the exception of it extending out the garage to the east by roughly 7’ to 8’ for a total of 28sqft. but still behind from the existing home and front porch. Reducing the effect of a garage at the front of the home, **and allowing the existing large Blue Spruce tree to remain**. • The new garage remains at the same setback from the neighbors on the right or north side as the existing garage. • The new addition would enhance curb appeal, and help strengthen property values throughout the community. • The new improvement would allow the current floor plan to be much more functional to a growing family’s needs & current market conditions/lack of homes make it not as feasible for moving. • We have included letters signed by neighbors all around in front, behind, to the sides and across the street and all along our block- stating clear support of what we are doing with the addition, square footage and the variance request on the FAR. Our current home is approximately 1,250 sqft. on the main floor and with our single car garage is 1,580 sqft. would are looking to increase this main area to 1,832 square feet, including a single car garage – (so the new portion would just adding in a connection – hallway, allowing for a washer/dryer area and stairs for storage underneath the basement.) On the top floor we would be adding a connection hallway and Bedroom and Bath at 480 sqft. for 1,442 sqft. Total finished would be approximately 2,916 sqft +our single garage (358 sqft.) With regard to the footprint of the home – it would only affect it by a minimal amount of square footage on the driveway – with a garage extension out length wise by a little over 7’ and everything else we have carefully had drawn to keep it within the current footprint. This would include: 1. Removal of the current older garage, excavate underneath allowing us to remove the tight shed across from the back steps as one comes out the back door (adding in a small storage area below.) 2. Rebuild the garage as 358 sqft. verses the current 330 sqft. and attach it to the main level. This would take the existing floor area of 1,250 sqft. on the main level and add approximately 216 sqft. onto it (space between the home and the garage) and then in addition, add on approximately 28sqft. on the garage (new garage.) The space in between would consist of a small walkway/transition between the garage and the main home and stairs within the garage to access a storage below. 3. On the top level above the garage this would add another bedroom for us and bathroom, utilizing the space above it and not exceeding any setbacks. The current floor area on the top floor is 962 and this new bedroom/bath would add approximately 480 sqft. for a small by reasonably sized master bedroom & bath. The small deck off the front would not be considered finished as it’s open space and enhance the character and curb appeal. This would naturally need to connect to the current top floor with a hallway and door that would allow one to utilize the space that is already there and above this area for outdoor sitting area. Approval of the request would permit us to construct an addition onto the garage consistent in size and character with the other homes in and around Whitcomb, and would be the minimum necessary in order alleviate our hardships and stay in compliance with other parties/councils that have interest in the addition, as we received full approval from the LPC. We had everything designed as close of a fit as possible within the same footprint with the exception of extending out the garage slightly forward. We hope that you would agree that our request would produce an aesthetically proper addition if not enhancement to our neighborhood. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (970-988-1030). Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. Respectfully yours, Catherine and Dylan Rogers Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: October 27, 2016 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals TH: Noah Beals, Senior City Planner - Zoning FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Decision Pertaining to an Addition at 113 South Whitcomb Street At its October 26, 2016 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a design review for an addition to be constructed to the residence at 113 South Whitcomb Street, as authorized by Municipal Code Chapter 14 Article III. The property at 113 South Whitcomb Street is a Fort Collins Landmark, designated by Ordinance No. 153, 2013, as part of the Whitcomb Street Historic District. This property is significant to the district for its history; it was determined at the time of designation that the property did not qualify for architectural significance due to its previous alterations. At its October 26, 2016 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 7-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a Report of Acceptability for the proposed work on the property located at 113 South Whitcomb Street, finding that it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” for the reasons stated by staff on page 3 of the staff report under item number two, acknowledging the physical circumstances created by the shape and the depth of the lot in its influence on the location and bulk and mass of the addition. Michael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Boardmember Stockover was absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 14 AND AUGUST 13, 2015 Shuff made a motion, seconded by Bear, to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2015 meeting. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve the minutes of the May 14, 2015 meeting. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda): None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA 150036 - Approved Address: 2201 Cedarwood Drive Petitioner: Mark Deines, ABO Ltd. Owners: Patrick Plaisance & Altisaya Vimuktanon Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description The variance request is to build a 635 sq. ft. addition to the house and allow two corners of the addition to encroach into the rear setback 7.42 ft. and 3 ft. Staff Presentation: Beals noted this property is in the cul-de-sac of Cedarwood Drive and stated open space surrounds the property. He showed slides relevant to the appeal and stated the addition would be off the back wall of the home. Beals went on to discuss the encroachments which would result from the proposed single-story addition. Additionally, Beals stated staff is recommending approval of the request as being nominal and inconsequential. Zoning Board of Appeals Page3 September 10, 2015 feet. There is a large shade tree 10 feet away. The request is to build their deck closer to the tree and have a stairway that connects to the lower patio. Audience Participation: Don Whitson, 2874 Blue Leaf Drive, spoke in support of the variance request. He has lived in the subdivision since it was built 22 years ago. They were unaware until about 5 years ago that the greenbelt area in the back is actually owned by the City. The sidewalk in the middle of the greenbelt is really a flood pan from a culvert that runs under Yorkshire. This area is unique to the neighborhood because the houses were built around this greenspace and it is the only place in the subdivision that the greenbelt narrows to a funnel where it is not passable by pedestrians. The neighbors have always taken care of the greenbelt. The City does not maintain it. When they built their homes it was presented to them that the HOA owned this greenbelt that connects to the park. There is not a lot of foot traffic because it dead ends. Fridal's deck is shielded by large trees to the north. The appearance of the proposed deck wouldn't look like it was encroaching into City property. The angle of lot is a disadvantage. The greenbelt narrows substantially and would be difficult to build the deck any other way. It enhances the character of the area. He has spoken to all the neighbors in the area and they are in support of this variance. Board Discussion: Long stated the request seems reasonable for the site and low impact given by the greenbelt. Bear made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal ZBA 150037 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the deck area that encroaches is not covered; the deck is open on three sides and the drainage easement abutting the property exceeds the minimum setback. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA150038 - Denied Address: 200 S. College Ave, Suite 160 Petitioner: Amy Laner. ANJO Designs Owner: Jesse Laner, C3 Real Estate Solutions Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7(M)(1), 3.8.7(M)(4)(a), 3.8.7(M)(4)(c), 3.8.7(M)(4)(d) Project Description: The request is to allow an Electronic Message Center sign, approximately 5 sq. ft., to be displayed in the ground floor window of the building. This request would require the following variances: 1) Allow the sign's message to be animated. 2) Allow the message to change more than once per minute. 3) Allow the changing message to scroll. 4) Allow the message to display more than a single color, value, and hue with a single color background. 5) Allow the electronic message center to be 100% of the total sign face area: maximum allowed is 50%. Staff Presentation: Beals stated the property is located at the corner of South College Avenue and East Oak Street. He showed slides relevant to the appeal noting its location in the window. Beals described the sign noting it is considered an electronic message center in the Land Use Code, which is only allowed to be 50% of the sign area and are only allowed 2 colors. Additionally, Beals stated staff is not From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: sign modification 121 E. Mountain Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:33:19 AM Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Chris Ray [mailto:cray@vantagerentals.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:27 AM To: Noah Beals Subject: sign modification 121 E. Mountain To whom it may concern, I own the building directly east of 121 E. Mountain. I won’t be able to attend the hearing for the electronic sign but wanted to make my opposition to any electronic sign in the Old Town district known. I feel a sign of that size and illumination would indeed detract from the ambience and character of the historical district. I hope that the Zoning Board of appeals denies this request and advises the P and Z board to review the existing electronic message center sign code to avoid these distracting signs that take away from the charm of Old Town. Chris Ray Asset Manager Vantage Properties Management LLC Cray@vantagerentals.com 1 Proposal to the City of Fort Collins Zoning Board Prepared by The Group, Inc. Real Estate November 2016 121 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524, (970) 493-0700, www.thegroupinc.com Executive Summary Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology isn’t the future of window advertising, it’s the now. It’s elegant, interactive, low-lumens, enticing, and the public is fascinated with it. Major brands utilize it in hundreds of cities nationwide and more and more cities are updating their sign code to accommodate this technology. We realize that this technology does not comply with the sign code as it is currently written. However, we also believe that this technology would not be detrimental to the public good. As a matter of fact, we believe this technology promotes the public good, introduces new technology, and elevates the City’s sign compliance into the 21st Century. Our Justification for this Variance is “Equal to or better than” because for The Group to be compliant the City would need to update your sign code to allow it. This new technology isn’t “equal to” LED technology – but it sure is “better than” (in some instances). We do not intend for this technology to replace LED, we simply want this technology to be allowed within an updated sign code. Technology will continue to advance at warp speed and The Group proposes that the City of Fort Collins join other cities and embrace it. Research sign code, seek community feedback, update the Land Use Code to incorporate new technology, and add Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology as a new segment. So the Board doesn’t have to imagine what a working monitor looks like from photographs, the Zoning Board is cordially invited to visit The Group’s downtown office and get a personal tour of this technology. Thank you for considering our proposal. We look forward to future discussions. Marge Brodahl Ambassador, The Group, Inc. Real Estate 121 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-493-0700 (office) | 970-420-3261 (cell) mbrodahl@thegroupinc.com 85” 33” 24” 42” The design is elegant, photography is professional, and the operating instructions are easy to understand. There is no comparison between this and LED technology which is as high-tech as the current sign code allows. 64” 1 Proposal to the City of Fort Collins Zoning Board Prepared by The Group, Inc. Real Estate October 2016 121 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524, (970) 493-0700, www.thegroupinc.com BACKGROUND There is no doubt that Fort Collins is an innovative and technologically-savvy community as evidenced by the continuing success of Innosphere, Galvanize, CSU at the forefront of innovation, Loveland’s The Warehouse, and the Smithsonian Institute showcasing Fort Collins as a Place of Invention. Fort Collins is filled with innovative people based on the number of patents issued. Between 2008-2013 Woodward, Inc. received 140 patents; since inception Otterbox has received 302 patents, between Jan 2002- Sept 2003 Hewlett-Packard received 350, Agilent had 147 patents with a Colorado inventor connection; LSI Logic Corp. earned 63 patents, Fort Collins-based Heska Corp. received 33 patents, Water Pik Technologies Inc. earned 14 patents, Fort Collins-based Advanced Energy Industries Inc. earned 11 patents, Atrix Laboratories Inc. received nine patents and General Electric Co.’s Loveland facility earned one patent during the time period. The Group, Inc. Real Estate, with six offices in Fort Collins and Loveland, is not only the leading Real Estate company in Northern Colorado, but is the most productive company in all of Colorado, (i.e., conducting more transactions per agent than any other company). In 2016 we celebrated our 40th anniversary as a local, employee-owned business. The Group leads the region in the use of leading-edge technology with a full-time CTO on staff orchestrating our progress. Our Realtors, clients, visitors, and locals benefit from a newly-designed, more robust web site, powerful mobile app, 3D virtual reality, Smart Home Technology, Google Earth Liquid Galaxy, and we are a pioneer in the use of Storefront Marketing Technology. Inman News, (the leading independent source of real estate news) published an online article in November 2015 about how The Group’s new Old Town location (formerly called The Source), was leading the way in how Real Estate companies creatively engage with Fort Collins visitors. (see Exhibit A to read the article) In May 2016 The Group Old Town office (formerly called The Source), took storefront interactive technology to a new level by installing an ImageSurge monitor to the inside of our glass window that allows sidewalk visitors to interact with the touchscreen from the outside of the glass. Viewers can search listings from not only The Group, but every Real Estate company on the MLS. It has been wildly successful. We did not seek a city permit because we were told by the manufacturer, ImageSurge, that as long as the monitor was on the inside of the glass that we were not violating City signage codes. On August 23, 2016 Ali van Deutekom, City Zoning Inspector, paid a visit to The Group Old Town office and told us that the electronic monitor wasn’t compliant with the Land Use Code and gave us 30 days to remove it. Ali brought with her a copy of the minutes from the September 10, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals that denied C3 Real Estate their appeal to install storefront technology. On September 23, 2016 we disabled the monitor. 2 After reading the C3 Appeal (denial) minutes, the City Sign Code, speaking with the ImageSurge CEO, and speaking with other imageSurge real estate clients, The Group concluded that the City of Fort Collins sign code, as currently written, does not encompass the leading-edge technology known as Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology (SIMT) and we propose to assist the City in updating the code. RESEARCH AND FINDINGS APPEAL ZBA150038 – Denied (dated 10 Sept 15) Board Discussion Passage: “If this technology becomes more prevalent, then City staff could work on proposals to change the Land Use Code.” Comments The retail storefront has not changed in nearly a century and since 2001 SIMT has revolutionized the way sidewalk viewers interact with a brand and are used by practically every major retail brand. Manufacturer imageSurge currently has 150 real estate installations in 33 U.S. cities, Puerto Rico, and Canada representing every major real estate brand, including: RE/MAX, Century 21, Sotheby’s, Berkshire Hathaway, Coldwell Banker, Keller Williams, Long & Foster, Corcoran Group, and The Group Real Estate. Colorado cities include Denver, Vail, Lakewood, Pagosa Springs, Steamboat Springs, and Englewood. (see Exhibit B or a complete list of imageSurge clients, or visit: https://www.imagesurge.com/# ) (see Exhibit C for supporting documentation related to the approval process) Founded in 2001, Touchpoint Systems, Inc., has been a leader in Interactive SIMT for more than 15 years. Specializing in real estate, with over 700 installations in the U.S. and Canada, TPS has helped transform hundreds of ordinary real estate offices into 24/7 information centers. (For more information about Touchpoint Systems, please visit: http://windowvisionusa.com/ ) Summary Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology might be new to Fort Collins, but it isn’t new. The Group submits that this technology is prevalent and proposes that the City research, seek community feedback, update the Land Use Code to embrace the advent of new technology, and add Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology as a new segment. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section (M) Electrical Signs and Electronic Message Center Signs Subsection 4 (c) (d) (e) (f) (c) “A displayed message must be presented in a single color, value, and hue and the background must also be a single color, value, and hue.” (d) “The maximum allowed size of an electronic message center shall be fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the sign face.” (e) “…integrated harmoniously into the design of the larger sign face and structure, shall not be the predominant 3 element of the sign.” (f) “…the pixel spacing of an electronic message center…” Comments Based on the language in Subsections c, d, e, and f, it is clear that the City’s definition of an Electronic Message Center is a “low technology, non-interactive static, or limited movement, LED or neon display.” Below are two examples of what the City describes as Electronic Messaging Centers. Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology is versatile and elegant. It allows the ability to control: • Brightness: ability to adjust brightness levels within a wide range either manually or on an automated schedule • Sleep Cycles: system can be completely powered down on a schedule, i.e., 11p-6a • Speed of Movement: animation and movement can be controlled and set to desirable speeds • Remote Monitoring: systems are remotely monitored 24/7 to ensure fresh content and peak performance In the five months that The Group used this technology the user experience and feedback was continuously positive. It’s easy to use and people were enthralled with it. Plus, as the saying goes “a rising tide lifts all boats,” our sidewalk monitor not only displayed Group listings, but every single listing in the Northern Colorado MLS – and it automatically updated every 15 minutes. The image to the right is The Group’s window monitor. The design is classic, photography is professional, and the operating instructions are easy to understand. There is no comparison between this and LED technology. The Group submits that because this technology is so adaptable that it would easily comply with updated sign code that addresses the advent of new technology. 4 Section (M) Electrical Signs and Electronic Message Center Signs Subsection 4 (j) 4. Passage: “Structural changes or sign removal that may be required in order to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs 3.8.7(M)(4)(d), (e), and/or (g) shall be completed by December 31, 2019.” Comments On August 23, 2016 The Group was given 30 days to comply with the Land Use Code. On September 23, 2016 we disabled the window monitor. Based on the language contained in the above passage regarding the December 31, 2019 timeframe, The Group seeks an explanation from the City. Supporting Information Acton, MA Acton Real Estate Marge Brodahl of The Group spoke with Victor Normand, Owner/Broker, regarding the Historic District Commission discussion. The City realized that other Cities allow the sign, aesthetically saw that this technology is an improvement over the current code, amended their bylaws and code, and, therefore, granted approval of the sign. The City stated “The installation will serve as a case study for Acton to determine the use for this kind of sign.” (see Exhibit D, pgs 1-2 for meeting minutes) The image on the right is taken from the front of Acton Real Estate in the heart of the Historic District. The monitor is in the right window. Brookline, MA Excerpt from the Planning Board Decision to Approve the Storefront Monitor (Victor Normand, Acton Real Estate, provided the Brookline approval documents) “Therefore, the Planning Board believes this type of sign will become increasingly more common with the advent of new technology, and this is a good opportunity to develop standards to design and regulate these new types of signs. The installation of this sign will serve as a case study for how to further develop the Brookline’s sign guidelines to regulate this type of sign.” (see Exhibit E for the Brookline, MA Planning Board/Historic District Commission Decision) Gig Harbor, WA Morrison House Sotheby’s International Real Estate Marge Brodahl of The Group spoke with Karen Vincent, Executive Assistant, regarding the process they underwent while working with the City of Gig Harbor, WA to grant a permit. After many emails back and forth, phone calls, and Q&A’s, the City approved the sign. 5 Conclusion Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology isn’t the future of window advertising, it’s the now. It’s elegant, interactive, low-light, enticing, and the public is fascinated with it. Major brands utilize it in hundreds of cities nationwide and more and more cities are updating their sign code to accommodate this technology. Since The Group is a leader in innovation and technology, we are a key stakeholder in the City’s decision and will gladly serve as a case study. Our Ambassador, Marge Brodahl, will serve as The Group’s representative in future discussions with the attorney, city staff, and the public. Technology will continue to advance at warp speed and The Group proposes that the City of Fort Collins join other cities and embrace it. Research sign code, seek community feedback, update the Land Use Code to incorporate new technology, and add Storefront Interactive Marketing Technology as a new segment. So the Board doesn’t have to imagine what a working monitor looks like from photographs, the Zoning Board is cordially invited to visit The Group’s downtown office and get a personal tour of this technology. Thank you for considering our proposal. We look forward to future discussions. Marge Brodahl Ambassador, The Group, Inc. Real Estate 2015 Ambassador of the Year, Visit Fort Collins 121 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-493-0700 (office) | 970-420-3261 (cell) mbrodahl@thegroupinc.com Relevant Web Sites http://innosphere.org/ http://www.galvanize.com/campuses/fort-collins-old-town http://www.energy.colostate.edu/ http://www.warehouseinnovation.com/ http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2015/06/25/museum-exhibit-promotes-fort-collins-as-a-special- place/29279031/ www.thegroupinc.com www.inman.com www.imagesurge.com www.windowvisionusa.com (NOTE: In early 2016, The Source was rebranded to The Group Old Town office) How one real estate firm’s innovative storefront draws in clients Inman News, Nov 19, 2015 A lifestyle visitor's center gives real estate company owner branding and lead generation opportunities Key Takeaways • The Group Real Estate’s Old Town office (formerly known as The Source) is a lifestyle center set up by independent real estate company The Group, Inc. in Fort Collins, Colorado. • It provides information to visitors on things to do in the Fort Collins area as well as real estate advice for those thinking of relocating to the area. Real estate offices are typically not the most attractive places in the world. A row of agents sitting at desks doesn’t act as a great draw to people new in town who want to get a taste of the place. But an cool architecturally designed space with lots of fun things to do — like Google Earth Liquid Galaxy map technology, coffee, friendly Ambassadors, and information from local experts on interesting things to do in the area? Now, that sounds more like it. From New Zealand to Fort Collins It was on a trip to the picturesque town of Queenstown, the “Aspen of New Zealand,” that Larry Kendall, chairman and founding partner of Northern Colorado’s The Group Inc. Real Estate, first came up with the idea for The Group’s new Old Town office. He visited a tourism information office there called i-SITE. It was next door to a real estate agent’s office, which was “kind of connected,” Kendall remembers. “I saw that and thought, ‘What a great concept,’” said Kendall. Just over a year ago, Kendall — an entrepreneurial type with his own sales-training business, Ninja Selling, within The Group — opened The Group’s Old Town office, a lifestyle center, in the heart of Fort Collins’ Old Town. It was cannily located just across the road from a town visitor center. “One thing we didn’t want was to have it look like a real estate office — we wanted it to look like a combination of a Starbucks and an Apple store,” explained Kendall. “You can get a coffee there and fly anywhere in the world on a 96” high-resolution screen equipped with Google Earth Liquid Galaxy.” Top priority: Information Kendall stresses The Group’s Old Town offices’ first priority is to tell people about the area. “You will not see any agents sitting at a desk like a normal real estate office — though there are a couple of agents on hand,” he explained. The marketing literature states: “We are here to help you discover where to live, places to go, and things to do.” Kendall elaborated on his approach. “About 25 percent of our business is relocation — people are moving from someplace else. These people not only need housing advice, they also want to know what the place has to offer.” When The Group opened their Old Town office, Kendall appointed experienced marketing and PR professional, Marge Brodahl, as the site’s Certified Tourism Ambassador. “The real estate side is secondary. The primary goal is to welcome visitors, answer questions, supply useful information, and be a good corporate citizen of Old Town” she said. Growing town, rapid development The Colorado town is drawing in a new population thanks to active hiring from some of its successful local employers. Fast-growing tech business OtterBox has its headquarters just a few blocks away. Another local company, Woodward, Inc., manufacturer for the aerospace and energy industries, has grown to a substantial size, said Kendall. As a consequence, new housing is underway in the town. “This is very rapidly growing residential market, there is a lot of loft development in the Old Town,” said Kendall. The Old Town office has proven a strong attraction not only to visitors to Fort Collins but also to staff from The Group, who enjoy holding events at the space. Relocation and marketing resources on-site “What I noticed was most of the people coming in were moving here so we moved our relocation office there.” He also noticed the Old Town office was providing potential for The Group brand, so he moved his marketing department to the location. Agents from The Group come and “work the floor,” said Brodahl. “They love it here and this location provides good lead generation,” she said. “Between September 2014 when we opened and December 2014, we had 43 walk-ins seeking real estate information,” Brodahl added. Paying the rent with ad revenue “We also offer advertising and marketing at the downtown office — there are displays for listings and local builders. The ad revenue from this pays for the rent,” said Kendall. After being open just over a year, the momentum continues to build, he added. “We’ve just had someone join from another company and the Old Town office was the primary reason she came. She wanted to be in that vibe,” said Kendall. Kendall teaches a Ninja Selling training class eight times a year and hundreds of agents from all over the country are introduced to the concept. “Agents who are in big city markets like Chicago and Austin have been very taken by it,” he said. “They would like to have a storefront like this.” About Inman News Inman News is the top rated real estate news site on the Internet (Source: Alexa traffic rankings), with over 650,000 unique visitors per month and 1.3 million page views per month. Known for its award-winning journalism, cutting-edge technology coverage, and forward-thinking conferences, Inman News is the leading independent source of real estate news, education, and insight. http://www.inman.com/2015/11/19/how-one- real-estate-firms-innovative-storefront-draws-in-clients/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6/29/2015 1 imageSurge Local Approval Information www.imagesurge.com 6/29/2015 2 Nationally Integrated Presence & Undefeated Track Record 150+ locations in 33 states, Puerto Rico and Canada 100% Town Approval Rate Vail, CO Princeton, NJ Columbus, GA Brookline, MA 6/29/2015 3 Multiple Adjustable System Features Brightness: Ability to adjust brightness levels within a wide range either manually or on an automated schedule Sleep Cycles: System can be completely powered down on a schedule (E.g. 11 pm – 6 am) Speed of movement: Animation and movement can be controlled and set to desirable speeds Remote Monitoring: Systems are remotely monitored 24/7 to ensure fresh content and peak performance 6/29/2015 4 Greater Visual Appeal Than Alternative 6/29/2015 5 Attention to Detail 6/29/2015 6 6/29/2015 7 6/29/2015 8 6/29/2015 9 6/29/2015 10 6/29/2015 11 6/29/2015 12 6/29/2015 13 Page 1 of 5 Historic District Commission Town Hall, Room 9 Meeting Minutes, 20 November 2015 Meeting called to order at 7:37 PM. Attending: Fran Arsenault (FA), Ron Regan (RR), Anita Rogers (AR) joining at 7h40, and David Foley (DF), David Honn (DH), David Shoemaker (DS; note-taker); not present Chingsung Chang (CC, Selectmen Representative) Citizens: Victor Normand from Acton Real Estate; Pete Henry from Lone Star Move to approve Oct 20 and Nov 10 Minutes; accepted unanimously 7:38pm Citizens Questions: David Honn recuses himself and poses a question: CNA to redo roof, same materials, same appearance DH rejoins 7:45 Public Hearing Continuation – Acton Real Estate Signage: Called to order #1531, Interactive signage. Legal Notice read to the committee and citizens. No questions on the application. Discussion: DS: have there been any changes in the application? VN: no. AR: Don’t want anything ‘moving’ on the screen when it is not being interacted with. We spoke of the HDC having input and review of the ‘Home Page’ images and design. DH: will it change periodically? VN: Yes; on a yearly basis, perhaps, the design. AR: will it be a home? Logo? VN: Yes. Meant to be read from the street. DF: Treat it as a sign in terms of the home screen; and any change in a normal sign would trigger a review by the HDC. Would like to have this procedure in place for this sign as well. AR: We classify this as a window sign. VN: On the home page there will be a basic layout or template, and all pages at a level of the system are consistent. DH: We would approve the template. VN: proposes that we reserve the right to review it, but not the obligation to make an explicit approval of every change. DH: This sounds appropriate. RR: The approval could work like a CNA, with the information on the standard form. DS: Changes to be brought to the HDC’s attention. DH: Brookline’s adoption of this sign has some sensible conditions – e.g, “Design of home screen subject to review and Page 2 of 5 approval; no additional text unless prompted by a pedestrian. Will return to home screen after 5 minutes.” DH: time to extinguish 30 minutes after business hours. What is your business day? VN: until 20:00, so would normally extinguish by 20:30. DF: Does the applicant have questions? VN: No; appears the HDC understands the issues and advantages. Objective is really to entice someone to enter. DF: is there a virtual keyboard? VN: believes yes, or soon; to get a phone number, email address, name. RR: HDC does not want videos, so a ‘Skype-like’ interface would not be allowed. AR: Assume it comes on when the business opens; and last person in the storefront would set the signal to shut down? VN: would be a burden; proposes that the operation is ‘not to exceed the duration’ of the building illumination. DS: a Typical business day; DH: consistency would be best. AR: Should indicate the time; will be a case study for Acton to understand the impact of this kind of sign. DS: perhaps the sign should be illuminated only while other businesses in the center are open. VN: Sounds like having the sign illuminated until 10pm would be workable; a simple solution seems best. AR: Suppose Sun-Thurs to 9:00, Fri-Sat 10:30. VN: Suggest to HDC to choose the latest times that are acceptable to the HDC and leave the right to review/modify. AR: Want to start on the conservative side, and welcome a request to extend the times. RR: Does it turn off if it is in the middle of a transaction? We would be comfortable with the machine continuing until an interaction was completed. DS: collect statistics and use that to help provide the argument for any changes in timing. AR: the Brookline sign may change every 5 minutes; the Acton HDC does not wish this to be true for Acton. AR: Move that we approve the sign, with the requirement that the HDC review the template and a typical listing page for the sign. Also require that future design changes be submitted to the HDC for review. The proposed on times would be from 8am 7 days/week, turned of Sun-Thursday at 9pm, Fr-Sat 10:30 pm. The installation will serve as a case study for Acton to determine the use for this kind of sign. One sign of 24x42” screen dimensions. No moving images will be shown (e.g., no Video). The image will be the static home display when not in use (i.e., not showing different images after a period of time). Motion passes. Public meeting is closed. Page 3 of 5 8:28 525 Mass Ave – True West Restaurant: Peter Henry. COA submitted. Brought samples for discussion. Two signs proposed; design elements discussed at the last meeting. Two samples circulated with gold leave on a high-density polymer base, the other gold paint on a wood substrate. All characters are to be carved into the surface. Both surfaces carry brush strokes. For the Circular sign, the normal requirement is no more than 6 sq ft of frontage; that is the surface area of the circle. N.B.: The circular sign may need to wait due to financial constraints. The larger rectangular sign is subject to an exception for the Village district by the HDC. The HDC looked at images with a code-consistent sign and one following the request. DH: a font in between the two examples for the smaller lettering may be preferable. Current lettering is 2.7 and 3.9; split the difference would be 3.30 inches, and the HDC likes this. AR: Motion to approve the urethane and gold leaf True West sign, 24” x 216” wide which requires a special permit by the HDC (granted). “True…” 10.8” inches per the artwork, and an ‘Village supported…’ to be 3.3” (halfway between smaller and larger artwork examples). Attached with hidden fasteners. Lighting is per cut sheet for Focus SLS-02 with the 45 deg angle. Brush strokes are not to be exaggerated while still appearing to have been brushed. Sheen and color per sample for the base of the sign. For the Projecting (circular) sign, the HDC also approves a 33” diameter sign to be mounted above the restaurant entrance, blade between the two doors. No illumination specific to the sign, and conforming to bylaws. Applicant to provide updated artwork for a confirmation of appearance font size. Motion approved unanimously. 8:57 10 Wood Lane – Roof, Chimney Demo and Rebuild, Skylight Replacement: Nigel Godley, applicant. DF: Applicant wishes to replace some of the roofing, rebuild a chimney, and renew a skylight. 3-Tab shingle, matching the current shingles. Applicant has recovered ~350 old bricks which are hoped to be used to replicate the old chimney. Shows a simple plan views to show where things lie. The chimney in question has 3 flues, and is the main chimney for the house. Current roof leaks in multiple places. DF: two other chimneys were previously rebuilt, and are different from the chimney to be rebuilt already. The HDC has previously Page 4 of 5 allowed only the face to carry old bricks, but the applicant would like to use one kind of brick, and will insist on old bricks if the recovered ones do not suffice. The replacement skylight is the same size as the present, and the same external appearance as the present skylight. DF: notes that it can be ordered with clear glass which would give a better external appearance. It appears a CNA will be appropriate due to the effort that the applicant is making to reproduce DF: Motion to issue a CNA #1537 for 10 Wood Lane. Shingles be replaced with a 3 tab… etc. DH to prepare the CNA. 9:11 12 Wright Terrace – Deck: Gregory Turner (contractor) #1536. AR: Visited and photographed. Stairway barely visible from the street. The Deck Repair is out of sight. Change of material is proposed to cellular PVC. GT: Wood ‘does not last anymore’ – new growth is not durable. The INTEX product is Extruded PVC around an Aluminum core. Also well dimensioned, and hidden fasteners. Will be painted to match trim. Motion to approve the existing stair railing repair of the Deck railing and newel posts for the South stair using the INTUS railing system per the application. 1 ¼ sq balusters, 8x8 posts, installed with concealed fasteners. Elements to be painted to match the trim of the house. HDC is approving the alternative materials due to the limited visibility of this stair railing from the street. Finding: the Stairs are 60-80 feet from the street, leading to the limited visibility. (maybe also approved before?) Motion approved unanimously. 9:35 6 Newtown Road – Roofing: Discussed need for Certificate of Applicability by DF. 9:45 Exchange Hall Fence Application: Glenn Berger. #1532. 127, 129, 131 Main St. DF: Extension given for the consideration of the application. Desires to install site fencing. Fencing is proposed around the property carrying several buildings. The material is Aluminum, to appear like wrought iron, and would be 3’6 off the ground. Objective is to make the collection of buildings and the property more a single coherent whole. Previous steps up to the Exchange hall and property nearby has been subsumed into road right-of-way, and provides default constraints on the position of the Page 5 of 5 fencing. A variance from the Planning board would be needed to re-create an entry that would be more historically appropriate. Adequate clearance is needed to allow snow removal. The Applicant hoped to have a start on the fencing soon, but if a request for a variance on the fence position were pursued a delay would be imposed. Recent public works are now completed making the installation of the fencing relatively simple. The Committee would like to see historical photos to help guide their recommendation. The proposed fence is cast aluminum, pre-colored black, and a smooth surface. Posts are 2 ½” square; units are 6’ long, and so that is the frequency of posts. Exchange hall is ~1860; at that time typically there were stone bases with wrought iron on top. The building is also tall; important that the fence height be well scaled to the situation. AR: put in a bed of flowers to moderate the fence apparent height. The fence will be on the stone (retaining) wall ground, and the committee likes the idea of it being installed in the wall. Consider 90 degree turns at the entries to provide the desired sense of enclosure. Changes in level should leave vertical pickets (steps or parallelograms). DS: note that the fence is near tall and not-so-tall buildings; advantageous to put the fence near the taller building up on granite piers, a stone wall, or raised ground behind a retaining wall. HDC proposes meeting again, informed by experiments with different fence heights, a look at an historical photo or two, to help find an optimal solution. 85 School St Women’s Club Lift and Fire Alarm, CAN. #1340 10:11 Administrative Discussion: DF will hand responsibility to DH for several weeks. 10:43 Move to adjourn; seconded and voted unanimously