Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/20/2019Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 JUNE 20, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Chair Shields called the meeting to order. Boardmember Long was absent. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190023 - APPROVED Address: 2620 S. Timberline Road Petitioner/Owner: Glenn Haas Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (B) Table (B) Project Description: Variance to install new INDL wall sign which is 60" tall, the max height of a wall sign is 30". This property is in the Residential Sign District and sub-district Neighborhood Service Center. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the request. He noted the proposed sign location is on the interior of the commercial development facing the parking lot and not the residential uses to the east. Stockover asked if the proposed sign is lighted. Beals replied in the affirmative. Meyer asked if the other buildings in the shopping center are also within the Residential Sign District therefore having the same sign height restrictions. Beals replied in the affirmative but noted the King Soopers sign received a variance. Applicant Presentation: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 20, 2019 Glenn Haas showed photos of the property and discussed the expansion of Krazy Karl's to provide a separate entrance for to-go order pick-up, the door for which will be below the proposed sign. He stated the proposed sign has 30" high lettering, but the logo makes the sign 60" high. The sign would be backlit by a 20-amp light from about 4 PM to 12 AM. Haas stated the sign is not detrimental to the public good and would not diverge from the standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. He showed slides of the immediate commercial area and associated signage. He also noted there will be no access to his business from the east side of the building. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra asked about an email sent to staff. Beals replied the email was received from an individual on the east side of the project which is the opposite side of the proposed sign. Stockover asked if there is a Code provision regulating the brightness of the sign. Beals replied in the affirmative. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she understands the issue of making the sign legible, and given the context of adjacent signs, there seems to be a precedent for approval of the sign. Chair Shields stated this variance would not affect any residential areas and he would therefore support the request. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the sign is a bit odd in that it appears to indicate a store named "Pick Up" as it is larger than the Krazy Karl's sign and is not cohesive with that sign. Stockover stated the sign fits the space and is in character with the area. Shields made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal ZBA190023 as the request will not be detrimental to the public good, the proposed sign is on the west side of the building facing the internal parking lot, the increase in height is not for the entire message of the sign, and the increase in height does not exceed the sign allowance for the property; 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 purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA190024 - APPROVED Address: 112 S. Grant Avenue Owner: Jo & Nick Clements Petitioner: Kate Penning Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)1; 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(E)(2); 4.7(E)(3) & (4) Project Description: This is a request for 4 variances: 1) Allow 113 square feet floor area over the allowed lot maximum of 1680 square feet; 2) Allow 496 square feet floor area over the allowed rear half lot maximum of 525 square feet; 3) Allow rebuilding of garage addition, using existing footprint, to encroach 7'4" into the required 15' rear setback; 4) Allow the front porch to encroach 4'3" into the required 15' front setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He noted the site is a subdivision of an original lot. He stated the proposal is to replace the existing garage with a new one in the same footprint and add a new porch on the front of the home. Chair Shields asked if the front porch is counted in the overall square footage calculations. Beals replied it is not included in the floor area calculations. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 June 20, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the size of the lot to the north. Beals replied he was unsure of the exact measurement. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the subject lot's rear yard setback is the side yard setback for the property to the north. Beals replied in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation: Kate Penning, Tomlinson Designs, discussed the request noting the lot size and shape create hardships for meeting square footage requirements. She also discussed the need for replacing the existing garage. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated her biggest concern was the rear yard setback encroachment; however, as it is not impacting the adjacent property to the east, it does not appear to be an issue. She acknowledged the hardship with the lot size and shape. Stockover agreed and stated the proposed scale is an appropriate fit. Chair Shields noted there is also a significant amount of neighborhood support. Shields made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve Appeal ZBA190024 as the request will not be detrimental to the public good, the lot is unique in size and shape for the NCL zone district, other structures along the block face encroach into the front setback, the front setback encroachment is for a porch covering that is open on three sides, the abutting neighbor to the east has a required side setback of five feet; therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA190025 - APPROVED Address: 317 Smith Street Petitioner/Owner: Bruce Neuroth Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: The variance request is to build a 340 square foot addition to the back of the existing home. The existing home and accessory buildings currently total 3746 square feet. The overall allowable floor area for this 9500 square foot lot in NCM district is 3625 square feet. The addition will put the overall floor area total at 4086 square feet, 461 square feet over the maximum allowed. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal noting the existing home and accessory buildings are already over the allowable floor area and the proposal would include an additional 340 square feet at the rear of the house. The proposed one-story addition does meet all required setbacks. Applicant Presentation: Bruce Neuroth stated he has lived in the neighborhood since 1979 and this addition will allow him and his family to continue to live in the property. He stated the addition will not be visible from the street. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the rear structure is a carport or garage. Mr. Neuroth stated it is a garage with an attached carport on the east. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover noted the addition is internal to the lot and not visible from the street. He stated it seems to fit well and was not opposed by neighbors. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the rear yard remains quite large and she will support the request. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 20, 2019 Shields made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair LaMastra, to approve Appeal ZBA190025 as the request will not be detrimental to the public good, the proposed addition is for a single story structure at the rear of the existing building, the proposed addition meets the setbacks and is entirely within the front half of the lot, 340 square feet is a 9.3% increase of the allowable floor area and a 9% increase of the existing floor area; 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 contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL ZBA190026 – OVERTURNED Appellant: Jeff Gaines and Bryan Soth Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 2.11.1; 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.7(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is an appeal of the Administrative Interpretation of sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and 4.7(d)(2)(d). Staff Presentation: Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the hearing procedure for this item will remain the same as other items and stated the decision will be to either uphold, overturn, or modify the administrative interpretation. He stated this request for interpretation was in regard to a property located at 226 North McKinley Avenue referring to Land Use Code Section 1.4.3. He stated the decisions made by the Board in all cases have persuasive value, though not necessarily precedential value. Vice Chair LaMastra asked whether other City-prepared documents interpreting the Land Use Code should be referenced, or if only the Code should be referenced. Yatabe replied legislative history regarding intent can be considered and argued. Beals stated the Code sections considered as part of this appeal deal with how floor area is granted and calculated related to detached accessory buildings. He described the interpretation of the Code sections. McCoy questioned why a variance board would try to set an interpretation for a standing issue. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the Board wouldn't just look at a variance for this specific issue. Beals replied there are three criteria under which a variance can be approved by the Board, and the Code makes clear an appeal of an administrative interpretation comes before this Board. Yatabe stated the grounds for this appeal is that the Code should be read differently. He stated the Board could arrive at the same conclusion through a variance; however, this is another avenue to pursue a variance and it is specific to this property. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there is anything else in the Code Section 4.7 that specifically calls out the maximum floor area of an accessory building. Beals replied the NCL zone district has some limitations on the maximum size of an accessory building, but there are no other standards in the section that call out how much floor area is allowed on the lot and how floor area is calculated. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Gaines, project architect Highcraft Builders, stated the administrative interpretation that was given did not look at what the Land Use Code has stated; therefore, an applicant has the recourse to come before the Board. He stated asking for a conventional variance on this project does not make sense to the question at hand. He noted this is a new house with a new detached garage and discussed his application of the Code to the project. He stated the Land Use Code needs to be changed to expressly define the 250 square foot limit and noted that is currently being contemplated. Mr. Gaines stated he confirmed his interpretation of the Code in 2013 with zoning staff and asked the Board whether zoning staff can deviate from a standard outlined in the Land Use Code. He also asked if there is any other method of applying the standards as written that would result in a 250 square foot limit on lots over 6,000 square feet without altering, omitting, or otherwise creating a paradox out of one of the standards. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 20, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked if Mr. Gaines was able to find other projects calculated in the same way. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative. Stockover asked Mr. Gaines if he was given the option of applying for a regular variance. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative but stated variances exist to deal with unusual physical conditions on lots or hardships, and in this case, this is a new house and a new garage and that route did not seem germane to the question as the actual interpretation of the Code was the question. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she believes Mr. Gaines did the right thing in approaching the issue in this manner. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra discussed the Code and stated it is clear in the way it is written regardless of its intent. She questioned whether an applicant is liable for understanding the intent behind Code language and discussed her thoughts about the wording. Chair Shields stated he has always read the Code section to state accessory structures may be 250 square feet, though he has never addressed it in such depth. He agreed with Vice Chair LaMastra that applicants should not be expected to research the interpretation of the Code and stated he would support the applicant on this issue. McCoy stated he did not disagree with Vice Chair LaMastra; however, a better context for the argument would have been present if the Board would have seen the variance. Vice Chair LaMastra stated Mr. Gaines did not submit for a variance because he did not believe he needed one given his interpretation of the Code. Stockover stated he would have likely approved this if it had come as an appeal; however, he stated he understood staff's interpretation while also understanding Vice Chair LaMastra's comments. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Gaines presented the Board with information related to his discussion with zoning staff in 2013 noting staff never clarified there was a mistake in the Code at that time and he had no reason to assume anything had changed since that time. Stockover stated Vice Chair LaMastra and Chair Shields had made excellent arguments in support of the appellant; therefore, he too would offer that support, particularly given the information related to the applicant's discussion with zoning staff in 2013. Chair Shields stated he did agree with McCoy that a regular variance request would have accomplished the same result and noted there are multiple interpretations of the section. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she does not take overturning staff's interpretation lightly; however, she cannot agree with that interpretation given the existing Code language. Vice Chair LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to overturn the administrative interpretation of Sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and 4.7(D)(2)(d) for Appeal ZBA 190026, at 226 North McKinley Avenue, finding that under Section 4.7(D)(2), the Land Use Code specifically defines different size lots, their allowable floor areas, for lots less than 5,000 square feet that do not mention an additional 250 feet, for lots between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet that do not mention an additional 250 feet. The Code then goes on to add, for lots over 6,000 square feet, that an additional 250 square feet will be permitted as well as in subsection 3 for lots over 10,000, that says it is 30% plus 250 square feet. Furthermore, in Section 4.7(D)(2)(b), (c), and (d), read for being applicable to all lots regardless of their size whether they are under 5,000 square feet or over 10,000 square feet, and how to calculate allowable floor area. At this point, in subsection d, it mentions that the first 250 square feet of a detached accessory building shall not be included. This subsection does not specifically define, as in subsection a, any differentiation in lot size; therefore, it is the assumption that it applies to all lots regardless of their size. Given that information, the motion is to overturn the administrative interpretation and allow the proposed site plan to move forward. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: McCoy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 June 20, 2019 5. APPEAL ZBA190027 – TABLED Address: 2720 Council Tree Avenue Owner: Studio Be Salon Petitioner: Randy Lerich Zoning District: H-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(A)(3)(a) Project Description: This is a request to allow signage on the west side of the building. An increase in sign allowance is permitted for the building with the condition that no signs be allowed on the west side. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the request for the ability to display signs on the west side of the building. Stockover asked if there is a corner lot provision in the Sign Code. Beals replied Council Tree Avenue is not a public right-of-way; therefore, the business is not given the sign allowance that would normally apply to a corner lot on two public rights-of-way. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the business currently exists in the location with signage. Beals replied the business is fairly new at this location and signage is currently on the south side of the building. Stockover asked if the request is to exceed the maximum sign allowance. Beals replied basing the calculation on the long side of the building would still allow this extra signage within the allowance; however, that calculation is based on the prohibition of signs based on the west side. Stockover noted the additional signage would be allowed on the west side if Council Tree were a public right-of-way. Applicant Presentation: Randy Lerich, Action Signs, stated the west side signage is being requested so traffic can see the location. He noted Front Range Village carefully regulates signage for its stores. Vice Chair LaMastra asked what is advantageous about moving the sign to the column versus putting it on the corner. Mr. Lerich replied the column placement allows the entrance of the salon to be visible. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the door below the awning is usable. Mike Ogden, Studio Be owner, replied that door is not usable by clients and often stays locked. He stated the proposed pillar sign is there so pedestrians walking east can see the sign. Chair Shields asked about the purpose of the awning sign on the west side. Mr. Ogden replied it is added branding and as an identifier for people coming that direction. Patrick Bunyard, Front Range Village General Manager, stated this space has been vacant for three years and storefront visibility has been a struggle. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there is a business entrance on the north side of the building. Mr. Bunyard replied there is a back door, but people park and walk around to the front entrance. Chair Shields asked if the allowable area for the logo was maximized on the projecting wall sign. Mr. Lerich replied the Sign Code allows 15 square feet per side, and this sign is right at that limit. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are signs on three sides of the column. Mr. Bunyard replied in the affirmative. Beals noted vertically-oriented signs are a new sign type in the recent Sign Code update and only one is allowed per building. Mr. Lerich stated he will likely be back before the Board for an additional variance related to a second vertical sign depending on the outcome of this appeal. Stockover asked if the Artery sign in Old Town is considered a vertical sign under the new Code. Beals replied that sign needed a variance for its overall height and projection, but not for being vertical. The new vertical sign types are flush to building walls. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover suggested asking the applicant if they would like to table the item and return with an alternate proposal. McCoy stated he would not favor a variance for this situation given the sign square footage is based on the street chosen. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 June 20, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra stated she understands the concerns of the applicant; however, four signs seems excessive. She also noted this approval would put an existing sign out of compliance. Chair Shields agreed the proposal seems a bit excessive and stated some minor tweaks could have put the proposal into compliance. Meyer asked whether the signage is based on the direction it is facing or the facing direction of the wall on which it is mounted. Beals replied it is based on the side of the building on which the sign is mounted, and blade signs are, by definition, perpendicular to the wall face on which they are mounted. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she would not support the request as the existing signage has not all been shown as part of the application. Stockover stated regulations on awning signs are lacking and noted there are many buildings with labeled awnings that are not placed over doors. He also noted signage for this type of use is advertising related rather than directional. Chair Shields asked the applicants if they would agree to table the item and return with a new proposal. The applicants replied in the affirmative. Chair Shields made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to table Appeal ZBA 190027. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals mentioned a recent ordinance change dealing with how Boards and Commissions members vote. The ordinance states that any abstention vote automatically counts as a 'yes.' Yatabe noted this same regulation already applies to Council. He also noted minutes can be voted upon by members not present at the meeting for which the minutes apply. • ADJOURNMENT: 11:35 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning