Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/14/2019Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Shelley La Mastra Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Ken Summers 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 FEBRUARY 14, 2019 8:34 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the December 13, 2018 Minutes. Vote Yeas: Jackson, Meyer, Shields, Long Abstain: McCoy, LaMastra Nays: None The Motion was carried. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180046 - APPROVED Address: 2405 Purdue Circle Owner/Petitioner: Lyra McMillian Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to be located 6 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The request is to continue building a shed in the backyard, located 9 feet away from the rear property line. There is a required 15-foot setback. The shed encroaches 6 feet into the setback, but the encroachment varies along the length of the building. The applicant acknowledged in her letter to the board that she was unaware of the requirements regarding a permit or setback. Construction was put on hold to follow ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 14, 2019 proper procedure. There is a large tree in the backyard that prevents her from moving the shed to accommodate the setback. The shed is sized properly in both square footage and height. Boardmember LaMastra inquired as to the health of the tree. Beals was not aware if the health of the tree has been assessed but did confirm it is a green ash tree. Applicant Presentation: Lyra McMillian, 2405 Purdue Circle, addressed the board. Ms. McMillian has the green ash tree pruned regularly and the arborist has advised the tree is healthy. Boardmember LaMastra brought up the emerald ash tree borers in the area and asked if the applicant is planning on treating this tree. Ms. McMillian’s arborist suggested it is not effective to pretreat trees, typically by the time the borer gets in the tree, it’s hard to recognize there is a problem until it’s too late. Her grandfather planted the tree, so she does have significant interest in keeping it healthy. Boardmember LaMastra stated the city has a prevention process in place and is planning on protecting some of their more significant trees. Boardmember Jackson asked about the roof height. Beals confirmed that the shed’s roof height is within requirements. Boardmember LaMastra reviewed the drawings of the porch and wanted to know if that area is reflected on the plans. Beals confirmed the porch is not shown on the plans. In this zone district, that porch area does not count toward floor area, but does prevent the shed from being moved closer to the tree. Ms. McMillian stated when she poured the footings, she did not want to encroach on the tree roots. Boardmember LaMastra questioned the width of the extra roof. Ms. McMillian indicated it is 6 feet. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Jackson brought up the correspondence received from neighbor Greg Redder. Beals read the email to the board. Mr. Redder states on the surface he was opposed to this variance but requested additional information. Beals emailed the application to Mr. Redder, who responded that he will defer to the adjacent neighbor as this structure does not present any direct conflict to Mr. Redder’s property. Boardmember McCoy asked where Mr. Redder’s property is located. Beals confirmed Mr. Redder resides on the other side of Purdue Road and pointed it out on the map. The surrounding neighbors were also notified of this variance in the same manner as Mr. Redder. Boardmember Shields was in favor of this variance. There is still a 9-foot setback to the property line and the neighbors haven’t expressed any issues. Boardmember LaMastra approved with the condition that tree is preventatively treated. She has spoken with the City Forester and they do have methods for ensuring trees will not get emerald ash borer. Given that the porch is what prevents the shed from being in the setback, if the tree is the limiting factor, we need to maintain that tree. Boardmember Jackson was also in support. She has a hard time making a hardship case, other than the fact that the foundation has already been poured. It’s common that people don’t know permits are required for sheds in this town. Without any neighbors here to speak against the variance, this would be nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA180046 for the following reasons, the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the physical condition of the existing tree on the property limits the ability to comply with the code, the encroachment is from 2 feet to 6 feet along the length of the wall. Therefore, the strict application of the standard results in an exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property, not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Boardmember LaMastra added a friendly amendment, accepted by Boardmember Long and seconded by Shields, to ensure that the applicant meets with the City Forester and that they review how to protect the tree. Vote: Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 14, 2019 Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA190001 - APPROVED Address: 110 Boardwalk Drive Owner: The Dunlap DD Trust Petitioner: Schlosser Signs Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Project Description: This is a request to allow a sign to be 12.08 feet in height as measured from street grade and setback 10 feet from the property line. The allowed maximum sign height is 10 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property was previously a restaurant and has been converted into an urgent care. With the conversion, they’ve asked to relocate an old sign. The sign is measured from grade at the gutter or flow line in the right of way, and measures about 12 feet in height. The maximum height the sign can be at a 10-foot setback from the property line is 10 feet high. The request is for an additional 2.08 feet of additional sign height. A permit was issued for the new sign, but it was not until city staff was onsite afterwards that they realized the sign height was over the max height of 10 feet. The applicant has now requested a variance to keep the sign in place. The sign structure is what was relocated, and then they refaced the sign to reflect the new business. Boardmember Shields requested clarification on where measurements are taken. Beals specified they measure from the grade at the gutter or curb, from pictures you can see there is quite a steep grade difference on the site, this carries on through the whole block face. Boardmember Long wanted to know where the sign was located previously. Beals indicated on the pictures. Long questioned how the previous sign was in compliance. Beals did not know when the permit was issued for the previous sign, but it could have been in compliance at that time. Boardmember LaMastra wanted to know if the rest of the wall signage on the property is in compliance. Beals confirmed that it is in compliance regarding square footage and location. Discussion regarding if the sign is a pole on the bottom with a metal apron around it, that is most likely the case, will confirm with the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Petitioner, Erin Garcia with Schlosser Signs, 3597 Draft Horse Court, addressed the board. Ms. Garcia confirmed that the structure of the sign includes poles and a pole cover or apron. This was an existing sign that was moved over. When the new sign faces were submitted, then the apron and cabinet around the sign face were repainted. Schlosser Signs installs signs for Med Express. The zoning reviewer, Schlosser Signs, and the customer all assumed the grading would be similar to the original location. No one thought that it would be measured differently upon inspection. Schlosser Signs purposely moved the location to make sure the setback would satisfy the 10-foot sign height. Ms. Garcia agreed that the previous sign location was equally as high if not higher. It was her understanding the previous sign was approved under old code. This sign had been refaced with Med Express and was grandfathered in at the previous location. Boardmember Meyer inquired as to how much effort it would take to reduce the height of the sign by 2.08 feet. Ms. Garcia explained that they proposed about 4 different options with the customer. It would be virtually impossible to use the existing sign structure and reduce the height. If this variance is not granted, they would have to produce a new sign and have it installed in the new location for around $10,000. The customer would be able to reuse the faces, just not the structure. Boardmember LaMastra asked if we believe the grade is equal, then this sign would have probably been a non-conforming sign where it was located previously. Beals confirmed this is the case. LaMastra stated that we relocated a non-conforming sign. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 14, 2019 Boardmember Jackson stated this is nominal and inconsequential. This is 2 feet out of compliance and it doesn’t seem detrimental to the public good. Sight lines for turning the corner are still held. All other aspects of the sign are in compliance. Boardmember Shields agreed, measuring from the flow line presents a challenge. He doesn’t see any issues with the sign as is. Motion: Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190001 because the variance is not detrimental to the public good, there are significant grade changes from public right of way to the property, the sign was existing in a different location, therefore the variance 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 contained in section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 3. APPEAL ZBA190002 - DENIED Address: 936 Kimball Road Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 36 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 1152 square foot accessory building is 352 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. Before this neighborhood was platted, there was a residential house on the corner, and it had an accessory building in the backyard. In time, this property was platted and developed into single family homes. When the home was built on the subject property, they kept the original accessory building in the rear. This is a one-story building, approximately 6 to 7 feet tall. The owner decided to demolish this building and start construction of a new building. The applicant failed to pull a building permit before commencing constructing of the new building. The City issued a stop work order, which required the owner to submit a building permit application. Upon submitting the application, it was found that the accessory structure was too large for current code. Current standards allow an accessory building to be up to 800 square feet in floor area. The proposal for this building is approximately 1152 square feet of floor area. The old building was one story that was approximately 1200 square feet. The old building has been partially demolished, the owner left part of the structure to help protect his tools, but Beals believes the old building will be completely demolished when the new structure is completed. The new building is taller than the primary building on site. The new building as proposed does meet height restrictions and setbacks. However, it is too large in square footage for an accessory building in this district. There was correspondence received from a neighbor. Boardmember Long established this is RL zone and the maximum height for an accessory building is 28 feet. Boardmember Shields confirmed the proposed new building meets all setbacks. Beals agreed that only size is the issue. Boardmember Meyer requested to view the slide of the primary residence with the accessory building behind it. Beals confirmed the primary residence is not to the maximum allowable height, and the accessory building can be higher in elevation than the primary residence. The primary building could have two stories. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 14, 2019 Boardmember Jackson asked if the accessory building is allowed to be bigger in floor area than the primary structure. Beals confirmed that it is, but when looking at a variance they must keep in mind at what point a structure becomes primary versus subordinate. Applicant Presentation: Larry Dietz, 936 Kimball Road, addressed the board. When looking from the street view, the peak of the accessory building is 19.8 feet in height, which is about 4 feet taller than the primary building. His intent is to match the existing structure with siding and color to ensure it is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Dietz would like to get his RV and boat out of the street view and into the new structure. The current structure isn’t even tall enough for his truck to fit inside. Mr. Dietz thinks this building will improve the street view. He anticipates a comment from the neighbor to the north regarding the shadow of this building. Mr. Dietz submitted additional pictures to show that shadow today. He consulted an individual at CSU about the elevation of the sun throughout the year and how much of a shadow this building will cast. Boardmember Jackson requested the length of the applicant’s RV. Mr. Dietz replied 27 feet, 6 inches. He does plan to purchase a newer model, and that is why the wall height of the structure is taller. New model RV’s are about 12 feet, 6 inches, so he has included a 14-foot overhead doorway to allow the air conditioner and other top units to clear the doorway. Boardmember Long wanted to know if the applicant was aware that he needed a building permit. Mr. Dietz confirmed that he was aware. He started this project in 2014 and met with several people in the building permit department and was met with resistance. He was frustrated with the rejection and went ahead and proceeded forward with his project anyway. Boardmember LaMastra asked if the building were to shrink 30% in size, could both the RV and boat still fit inside. Mr. Dietz says it could not. LaMastra asked if he could fit one of the two, and Mr. Dietz said he could. With the current posts and $4,000 worth of roof trusses already standing, it would be difficult. He doesn’t know how to shrink the size and still get both the boat and RV off the street view. Boardmember Meyer questioned when Mr. Dietz decided to move forward without a building permit, was he aware the structure was not in compliance with the Land Use Code? Mr. Dietz said no. Boardmember Jackson inquired if he had a general contractor as there is a company listed on the sketches. Mr. Dietz replied he does not have a general contractor, he is doing the work himself. However, the structure is engineered. All materials were purchased from Menards in Cheyenne, they are engineered trusses out of central Nebraska and the plans do have an engineer’s stamp. Boardmember Jackson confirmed with Mr. Dietz that the engineer is licensed in Colorado. Boardmember LaMastra requested to know more about Mr. Dietz’s frustration with the building permit process. Mr. Dietz replied in order to tear down the old building he had to go through the process to establish if it was a historical building, then establish if there was asbestos. He started to dig the footings for the posts of the new structure, and when he approached the building permit department, he was told about the setbacks. Originally, he wanted the structure closer to his back fence to allow for longer driveway to maneuver the RV and boat into the doorway. He’s actually using part of the foundation from the old building, which is 16 feet off the back fence. That would be a storage area for tools, garden tractor, lawn mowers, etc. LaMastra asked if he was made aware of the height restrictions during this process of meeting with the permit staff. Mr. Dietz said he was not. There was a young gentleman who requested engineered drawings, and for Mr. Dietz to submit everything on a thumb drive. Mr. Dietz stated he is not a technical person and he is retired. He did not have the knowledge or the people to do this for him, so instead he started digging holes. Boardmember Jackson inquired if this structure was permitted, Mr. Dietz confirmed that it is not. Boardmember Shields asked if Mr. Dietz was aware of the size limit requirement. Mr. Dietz stated he was not. Shields specified there are two vehicles both 9 feet in width, and the proposed building is a 36 feet wide. Mr. Dietz confirmed this is correct. There are two doorways, one is 14 feet to allow for the RV and the second door is 10 feet high for the boat. If he parked everything just right, he could also fit his truck to get it off the street. Boardmember Meyer wanted to confirm the building has been engineered by a licensed structural engineer. Mr. Dietz clarified, it wasn’t engineered by them, he did it himself. Then, per the building department’s request, he retrieved a stamp by an engineer. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 14, 2019 Boardmember Long clarified the trusses were engineered. After the fact, an engineering company was brought in and listed which items were in compliance, as well as 8 items that need to be addressed. What is currently built is not properly structured. Boardmember Meyer questioned reusing the existing foundation and asked when that previous structure built. Mr. Dietz clarified he is not reusing existing foundation. All the posts were buried 4 feet deep with concrete, with 6 inch by 14 inch diameter padding at the bottom of each post. He cut the existing foundation to plant those posts, what is being reused is the concrete slab. Audience Participation: Cynthia Harris, 931 Kimball Road, lives directly across the street from the applicant. Ms. Harris has owned this residence for 22 years. She is in full support of this variance. It replaces another building with a larger footprint. The new structure will increase property values in the area, it is safe as confirmed by a structural engineer, and it’s architecture keeps with the buildings in the neighborhood. It will provide safe and secure storage for the RV, removing it from view and protecting it from vandalism. The attractive new building is a welcome asset. Patty Jeffries, 2804 West Elizabeth Street, lives directly south of the applicant. She has no reservations about this variance and does not anticipate that this would negatively affect her property value. The consolidation of all the vehicles into the structure will be a vast improvement for her line of sight. The area of the previous structure will be a patio upon completion, which is better than what she currently sees. Stefanie DeAngelis, 930 Kimball Road, lives directly north of the property. She is very bothered about the size of the barn and has also submitted a written statement. The City determined that the structure is illegal, twice. There is no reason the applicant needs or deserves to exceed the 800 square foot maximum. His illegal tactics to build an illegal structure of illegal size should be enough to deny his variance. Even the slightest possibility this behavior could be rewarded with a positive outcome seems like a serious flaw in our city’s codes and an invitation for all of us to cheat the system. Ms. DeAngelis has looked all over Fort Collins for a structure like this in a back yard and haven’t found anything like it. An airplane would fit in, with extra room. This building would be fine in another zoning district, on a farm or in a commercial or industrial area, but not in a residential neighborhood. Ms. DeAngelis asks that the zoning codes be upheld in her neighborhood without an HOA. Boardmember LaMastra revisited the question she asked Mr. Dietz regarding if he reduced the structure would he be able to fit both the boat and RV in it, and he said no. The email Ms. DeAngelis sent on Jan 31, 2019 states 800 square feet would allow room for parking his RV, for ample storage, a workshop area, and the parking of his boat or another vehicle. There seems to be a conflict on what would fit in this structure. Ms. DeAngelis stated Larry is actually saying he won’t be able to alter the structure that he illegally built. However, he could get a building engineered at 800 square feet with a single sliding door that would be built to city code that would allow him to fit both of those vehicles in it side by side. As previously stated, they are only 9 feet wide. He does not need 36 feet in width to fit those items inside. Except for the fact that he has main support structures in the middle of the barn and two sliding doors instead of one. It would require that he would have to take down what he’s built illegally, then reengineer, redesign, and get permits. Boardmember LaMastra asked if Ms. DeAngelis is more bothered by the footprint or the height. Ms. DeAngelis does not agree with the height but is most bothered that when she looks out her window or out her patio now all she sees is a giant warehouse. If he reduced the length by 11 feet it would make a significant difference. A third of the structure is a substantial reduction. Boardmember LaMastra clarified it would come further from her property line, but the elevation and height would be the same. Ms. DeAngelis agreed, but also brought up if they had to reengineer the structure, it could be in a different location or different dimensions. When the structure started to go up the applicant’s wife told her they had permits in place. Otherwise, she would have contacted City staff that same day. Boardmembers inquired as to how and when was it determined the building had no permit. Beals is not sure if we received a phone call or if a building inspector was just in the area, but an inspector saw the structure and issued a stop work order. The applicant might be able to better address the length of time between when construction started and when the stop work order was placed. Boardmember LaMastra asked Ms. DeAngelis about the existing structure versus the new structure. The existing structure is significantly longer. If the height is in compliance, and part of the backyard is transitioned into an open courtyard, this might improve your side yard area. Ms. DeAngelis stated the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 14, 2019 previous building was only 6 feet tall on her side of the property. Growing season sunlight will not affect her yard or plantings. The shadow cast from the building comes to the edge of her patio. When out in her yard or sunroom, it’s completely changed the light through the winter. As far as the previous building goes, it did not bother her. She wants them to be able to do what they want with their property, but this building is not acceptable. Sandy Dietz, 936 Kimball Road, applicant’s wife addressed the board. This building is not going to look like a warehouse. It will match the primary building, with siding and roof in the same colors. Ms. Dietz wants the board to be aware that the neighbor illegally put unstamped letters into the surrounding neighbor’s mailboxes. She never told Ms. DeAngelis that they had acquired a permit. This structure will enhance the neighborhood. The existing structure was dilapidated and falling apart, this is a big improvement. Mr. Dietz says he had applied for a building permit when they had the discussion with Ms. DeAngelis. The permit application was rejected because he wanted to place it within 10 feet of back fence to allow for a bigger driveway. Mr. Dietz wanted more space to turn a 27-foot RV with a 12 foot pick up, or an 18 foot boat. They would fit in a smaller building if you could maneuver them without a vehicle attached. It would be very difficult to downsize the building. Boardmember LaMastra asked Mr. Dietz to clarify that he did apply for a permit, and the only communication he received back was regarding the setbacks. Mr. Dietz says this is correct. LaMastra asked if we have record of that. Mr. Dietz replied that there is no record. When he took the plans in, he spoke with a young gentleman who advised they would need a variance due to the proximity to the back fence. This was his third or fourth time going to the building department. At that point, Mr. Dietz decided to use the original footprint of the old building and expand upon it for the new building, while taking down half of the old structure to open up the north neighbor’s view. Boardmember Meyer clarified that Mr. Dietz did not formally submit a permit application at that time. Mr. Dietz confirmed this is correct. He submitted an application recently and paid the fee, and that is how the variance is being heard in front of the board currently. Boardmember LaMastra reiterated that it was never communicated to Mr. Dietz that this structure was significantly oversized. Mr. Dietz confirmed this is correct. He doesn’t remember who he met with at the permit department, just that he was a young gentleman. Board Discussion: Boardmember Long stated that the real issue here is massing. RL zoning allows an extremely tall accessory building height. He is usually in support of garages and accessory buildings. This board looks at the public good, what is nominal and inconsequential, and if there is a hardship present. This meets none of those. The applicant knowingly went ahead with the structure without being approved. The staff at the building department were simply instructing him to submit plans for review. Boardmember Jackson brought up that this goes beyond massing. It is detrimental to the public good. She acknowledges Mr. Dietz’s frustration with the city, but the process is there for a reason: to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all residents. Having this building which may or may not be engineered properly, and may or may not be built per the city standards for construction is detrimental to the public good. Being 44% over the square footage for an accessory building is significant. She does not see a hardship here. An 800 square foot building would accommodate the applicant’s need. Boardmember LaMastra stated that Mr. Dietz knew he needed a permit, he chose to disregard the process and start construction anyway, which is troubling. Boardmember Shields agreed the process is there for a reason, everyone goes through the same procedure. All of this would have been avoided if the applicant went about this properly. McCoy agreed with the other boardmembers. Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to deny appeal ZBA190002 for the following reasons: 352 square feet is a 44% increase in the allowable square footage for an accessory building is not nominal and inconsequantial in the context of the neighborhood, insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property, and insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standard in an equally well or better way than a proposal that complies with the standard. Vote: Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 14, 2019 Nays: None. The Motion was carried to deny the appeal. 4. APPEAL ZBA190003 - DENIED Address: 4701 Strauss Cabin Rd Owner: Harmony 23 LLC Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano Zoning District: H-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Project Description: Variance requested to install a second monument sign for the new Wyatt commercial property along E. Harmony Road. The maximum number of monument signs along any frontage is one. Staff Presentation: Taylor Meyer excused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property received a development approval for a multi-family complex with 368 building units on 14 acres. The request is to build three monument signs along the property. There are two frontages: East Harmony Road and Strauss Cabin Road. The applicant is allowed one monument sign along each frontage. The request is to have at least two signs along Harmony Road, one at the corner and one at the far west property line. The distance is about 1,000 linear feet along Harmony.The signs that are in place do comply with sign code standards. Boardmember LaMastra inquired if there are any other apartment complexes with a similar frontage area and two signs. Beals didn’t recall another similar apartment complex. This board did approve a variance for the HP/Broadcom commercial property across the street, allowing them to have two signs along their property. Boardmember Jackson requested to see one of the slides again. She asked if these were two different properties, could they could have separate signs. Beals clarified if they were two different properties with two different vehicle entries, then they could have separate signs. If they shared vehicle entry, they do encourage properties to consolidate sign locations. There is no entry on Harmony, the only entry to the property is on Strauss Cabin Road. Boardmember McCoy inquired as to the use of the north east corner. Beals explained this is a detention area for the wetlands. Applicant Presentation: Nicole Vatrano, representing DaVinci Sign Systems, addressed the board. Ms. Vatrano addressed the previous question from Boardmember LaMastra regarding other apartment complexes. The sign located on the corner of Harmony Road and Strauss Cabin is near the detention pond so there is a utility easement. Therefore, they are limited in how to angle the sign, and cannot rotate it far enough to be double sided. They wanted to put the sign on the western side of Harmony because the actual entrance to the complex is further in on Strauss Cabin. Boardmember LaMastra requested clarification regarding the positioning of the signs. Casey Easton, Sign Designer and Sales Representative with DaVinci Sign Systems, addressed the board. All three signs are one sided. The main entrance sign is turned at a 45 degree angle to fit around the retention pond and utility easement. This sign is only visible for westbound Harmony Road traffic. The sign higher on the west side is where they are requesting the variance. This sign is intended for eastbound Harmony Traffic. Boardmember LaMastra asked if there was any way to consolidate to one single sign more in the middle and make that sign perpendicular for both directions of traffic. Mr. Easton replied there is a sidewalk that limits the amount of space available. The main entrance sign was so tight it had to be turned at 45 degrees to fit in. They are even using a hydrovac on the foundation because of utilities located in the immediate area. Multiple questions regarding the location of the signs on the site map. The sign is actually turned perpendicular to Harmony Road, which is not reflected on the map. There is an easement and a small portion of land dedicated to the sign. All signs meet other code requirements. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 February 14, 2019 Comment from Beals that the sign can be located in the easement, but they avoid being over any actual pipes. Mr. Easton clarified that they have placed signs on the line previously, but in this case that shouldn’t be an issue. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Long stated they have seen this request previously from one of the hospital sites and Houska, where two monument signs are being requested along large property lines. Boardmember LaMastra views the hill crest as an advantage to the visibility of the apartment complex. This is not a hardship of the site. The problem is the ability to rotate the sign at Harmony and Strauss to be a two-sided sign that is visible to eastbound traffic. Boardmember Shields agrees. Boardmember McCoy asked Beals about a similar discussion regarding a complex located on the northwest corner of Drake and Timberline. Beals was not supporting staff liaison at that time and doesn’t recall if a variance was in place. McCoy thinks this board denied that variance for two signs. Hospitals and work places are different from apartment complexes. This apartment complex is highly visible. Boardmember LaMastra inquired if the sign would be allowed to go into the easement at Strauss Cabin and Harmony Road to make the sign two sided. Mr. Easton replied the main entrance sign was placed there as a result of the retention pond, drop off, and setbacks. There is no room to turn the sign. The customer wants that corner to be the main sign highlighting where the entrance is located. Boardmembers reiterated that an apartment complex is different than a commercial property and that this complex is highly visible. Boardmember Long stated it appears there is enough room for a two-sided sign at approximately mid-site. Additional board discussion regarding a lack of specific hardship for this variance. Boardmember Jackson added that nominal and inconsequential doesn’t apply and this is not detrimental to the public good. Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to deny appeal ZBA190003 for the following reasons: I don’t find a particular hardship that could not be overcome by a potential other location, I don’t see it as doing particular harm to the public good, I do not see it as being equal to or better than a single sign along Harmony, and a second sign, which would be 100% increase in signs on Harmony, is not inconsequential or nominal. Vote: Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Shields, LaMastra, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried to deny the appeal. • OTHER BUSINESS Election of officials for 2019. Discussion regarding who would be the most appropriate. Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve Ralph Shields elected to the Chair and Shelley LaMastra elected as the Vice Chair. Vote: Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried.