HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/10/2019Ralph Shields, Chair
Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair
Bob Long
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Ian Shuff
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
OCTOBER 10, 2019
8:30 AM
•CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
•APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve the September 12, 2019 Minutes.
The motion was adopted unanimously, Long abstained from the vote.
•CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) – None.
•APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1.APPEAL ZBA190039 – APPROVED
Address: 806 W. Mulberry Street
Owner/Petitioner: Kevin Dewlen
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(E)(3); 4.8(D)(3); 4.8(F)(1)(c)
Project Description:
This is a request to build an accessory building (garage with carport). The request requires the
following three variances: 1) Allow an accessory building to encroach 7.29 feet into the required 15
foot rear-yard setback. 2) Allow the floor area in the rear half of the lot to total 1,062 square feet, the
maximum allowed floor area is 907.5 square feet. 3) Allow an accessory building to be 1.12 feet less
than the required 10 foot minimum front setback, greater than the front setback of the principle
building.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the primary
structure was built in 1939. The proposal is for a single story garage with a carport along the side.
This property faces Mulberry, therefore the rear setback is the property line to the north, requiring a
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 October 10, 2019
15 foot setback. The joining neighbor only has a 5 foot setback from the shared property line as it is
their side yard. There is an alley located along the west property line. To ensure an accessory
building is not the focal point of the property, an additional 10 foot buffer is required from the primary
structure. This proposed garage is not meeting that setback by 1.12 feet. Also, because this is a
smaller parcel that was split the long way of the rectangle, the majority of the house already sits in the
rear half of the lot. The additional floor area being requested does not exceed the overall lot square
footage, just the rear half. There is an existing shed that did not previously require a permit due to it’s
size, and therefore is not counted toward the floor area.
Applicant Presentation:
Kevin Dewlen, 806 W. Mulberry Street, addressed the board. He stated this is a unique lot with the
east/west orientation but with the address facing Mulberry.
Audience Participation: None.
Board Discussion:
Boardmember Long stated this is a unique lot that lacks depth after being subdivided. It impairs the
owner’s ability to do much of anything within code.
Shields agreed, and liked how the applicant put the accessory building to the neighboring side,
opening up the lot.
Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve ZBA190039 for the
following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to
public good, the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area of the lot overall, the
subdivision resulted in a shallow parcel, the abutting property to the north is allowed a 5 foot
setback from the shared property line and the proposed structure takes vehicle access from
the alley. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal,
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 and a 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.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
2.APPEAL ZBA190040 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION
Address: 310 N. Mason Street
Owner: Rich Mark
Petitioner: Chad Hartoin
Zoning District: D
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(E) Table C
Project Description:
The variance request is to allow window signs to exceed the permitted area a sign can cover in a
window and to exceed the allowed overall height sign. The request proposes to cover 100% of the 2
sections of windows in vinyl signage when the code allows only allows up to 50% coverage.
Additionally, a window sign cannot exceed 7 feet in height, the proposed signs are an additional 2
feet 3 inches taller sign than the maximum sign height.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property
recently developed in 2014. Current sign code limits the percentage of window area that can be
occupied by a sign. One window area is defined as the space between architectural features, a
window area is not broken up by the small mullions. Currently at this location, 100% of the window
area is covered in signage. The two variances that are needed are the percentage of sign covering
the window and the sign height. To come into compliance, they would need to reduce the sign area to
50% and reduce the height of the sign to 7 feet. The signs are already in place, the applicant did not
realize they needed a permit for the signage.
Boardmember McCoy asked if window signs are separate from building signs in term of allowable
square footage. Beals confirmed both count towards the allowable square footage for the building and
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 October 10, 2019
the applicant would still be in compliance as they have 2 frontages and quite a bit of allowable sign
square footage.
Vice Chair LaMastra questioned the colored stripes and black area towards the bottom of the window.
Beals confirmed those are included in the sign area.
Boardmember Meyer asked if they removed just the black and colored stripes at the bottom and the
top above the mullion, would that be 50% of the signage. Beals explained if they took one side out
and shorten the sign height they might be within the 50%. The height limit would still be an issue.
Boardmember Shuff, inquired as to what defines signage, if that has to be text or imagery. Beals
clarified signage can be anything that is used to market your brand. In this case they are advertising a
lifestyle, when it’s something that is part of the marketing campaign, then it’s part of the signage.
Applicant Presentation:
Chad Hartoin, 310 N. Mason Street, addressed the board. Mr. Hartoin asked what the difference is
between taking down half the signs versus just the stripes and bottom area. These are multi-purpose
signs, and they allow for privacy while people can still look outside.
Lucy Skrobacz addressed the board, explaining the window wraps are in place to address privacy
issues because from outside you can see into the residential area. This is a common area where
amenities are located and they hold resident events here. The colors were chosen to match the color
scheme of the building. They are willing to remove the top or bottom portion of the sign to help come
into compliance with code.
Vice Chair LaMastra explained that typically when you apply for a variance there are justification
reasons listed. This application stated this variance does not diverge except in a nominal and
inconsequential way. LaMastra would like explanation as to how this is the case when the percentage
of signage on the window should be 50% coverage, but is currently 100%. Ms. Skrobacz replied that
this is adding to the lifestyle of the community and the neighborhood. LaMastra clarified the board is
not here to look at their marketing, they have to focus on the code requirements. Ms. Skrobacz
explained that previously there was a misunderstanding as they believed the coverage was 50% of
the total public facing windows (not including resident windows) could have signage. Beals clarified
that is not how the code is applied. The code is applied to a distinct window area, as distinguished by
significant architectural features. Within that area, up to 50% can be signage. The advertiser doesn’t
have the option to take percentages from all different window areas.
Audience Participation: None.
Board Discussion:
Boardmember Stockover stated this seems like a minor infraction compared to many of the
businesses along College Avenue. Window sign code is challenging and this is an attractive looking
sign. Beals stated merchandise is allowed to be displayed 3 feet behind a window and does not count
as a sign, Also, this signage would not be considered a banner.
Vice Chair LaMastra emphasized the board’s focus on the code and requested measurements of the
signage. Ms. Skrobacz replied the height of the image portion of the sign is 71.75 inches, the bottom
portion with colored stripes and black panel is 2.5 feet in height and the top small windowpane is
11.25 inches. LaMastra estimated this would be approximately 40% of the sign, which would then be
nominal and inconsequential. There is no hardship, and this isn’t equal or better than the code.
Boardmember Meyer stated the black bottom panel and colored stripes do not seem to tie into the
signage. Removing the top or bottom sections would not affect the privacy and would seem nominal
and inconsequential.
Ms. Skrobacz explained the colored stripes, stating The Flats have three communities: Mason Street
Flats, Old Town Flats, and Max Flats. Each community has their own color scheme and also tie into
each other.
Boardmember Long stated the signs are tasteful, but that is not why we are here, we need to focus
on the square footage. This signage is already installed. We tend to have strict adherence to the sign
code because it makes Fort Collins unique. He cannot approve a 50% increase even though this is a
tasteful sign. There are other solutions to the problem without approving this appeal as it is proposed.
Discussion regarding the motion language and whether they specify square footage or percentage.
Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA190040 with the
condition that on all 4 panes the portion of the sign above the top mullion and below the
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 October 10, 2019
bottom mullion (the sky and the black with the three stripes) are removed from the window.
We find this supports the Land Use Code, and does not diverge except in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood.
Boardmember Long questioned the condition, asking if the applicant is allowed to make the bottom
portion a spandrel window and if it can be black or clear.
Boardmember Shuff stated if they remove the signage the applicant can choose to make that a
spandrel window as more of an architectural element rather than a signage element.
Beals confirmed the applicant can choose to do something else at the bottom. Beals would need to
confirm if there are any transparency requirements per the Land Use Code separate from the sign
code. There are also some limitations on spandrel glass with architectural design standards. Another
option is to place blinds or a sunshade in the window as long as there is not signage printed on the
window side of the blind. The variance is only for these two window areas. They can also shrink the
design as a whole to still include the color stripes on the bottom. The signage can also be changed
out for other images for the life of the property.
Boardmember Stockover stated if the windows were blacked out, then 100% of the windows would be
covered again. Beals clarified if the windows are blacked out we would need additional information on
what was used to cover the window. If that meets the definition of a sign, or is out of compliance with
other Land Use Code standards, then it would be addressed accordingly.
Boardmember Meyer argued that the bottom row being spandrel glass would be part of the window
assembly as a whole.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
3.APPEAL ZBA190041 –TABLED to the end of the hearing, waiting for the applicant to arrive.
Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to table ZBA190041 to the end of
the hearing.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none.
4.APPEAL ZBA190042 – APPROVED
Address: 4030 Big Dipper Drive
Owner/Petitioner: Tyler Shurigar
Zoning District: U-E
Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)
Project Description:
The variance request is to allow a 192 square foot accessory building to be built 12 feet into the
required 25 foot rear yard setback. A similar variance request was approved in 2015 but expired after
6 months.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting some
members might remember this item from 2015. This property is zoned U-E and has a larger setback
than most districts. The structure would be placed just north of the house. Multiple drainage
easements are present on the property and the City’s storm water department has approved the
placement of this accessory building. This was a condition of the last approval as well.
Applicant Presentation:
Tyler Shurigar, 4030 Big Dipper Drive, addressed the board. In addition to the staff presentation, he
would like to board to know when this was previously presented 2015, they were also discussing the
construction of a 4 foot high retaining wall. The retaining wall has now been built and the shed would
be behind the wall as to not interfere with the existing drainage.
Boardmember McCoy requested clarification on the location of the front door. Mr. Shurigar confirmed
that is on the west side of the property along shared access.
Audience Participation: None.
Board Discussion:
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 October 10, 2019
Boardmember Long commented he was present in 2015 when this was originally approved. Also,
there are not a lot of opportunities on this lot to move the structure and there are no neighbor
comments.
Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve ZBA190042 for the
following reasons: the appeal is not detrimental to public good, the typical half lots in the U-E
zone do not include additional stormwater infrastructure outside of drainage, the primary
structure was built closer to rear of the property than the front of the property, the existing
grade increases the difficulty in finding a suitable location for an accessory building; therefore
the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant
and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED.
***Secretary’s note: 10 minute break as the applicant for ZBA190041 had not yet arrived***
3.APPEAL ZBA190041 – TABLED
Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to table ZBA190041 to a future
hearing.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none.
•OTHER BUSINESS
This month is the board and commission dinner, please RSVP by the 23rd.
Next month’s meeting we will be starting at 8:30 a.m., but we will be spending the first hour with our
council liaison having breakfast until 9:30a.m. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. Please submit the
requested survey to us if you have not already.
***Secretary’s note: the applicant for ZBA190041 arrived at Council Chambers***
3.APPEAL ZBA190041 – DENIED
Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to un-table ZBA190041 with the
applicant now present.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none
Address: 1201 W. Plum Street
Owner: Plum Street CO Owners LLC
Petitioner: Timothy Eunice
Zoning District: C-C
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B
Project Description:
The variance request is to allow 5 existing non-conforming flush wall sign cabinets to be replaced with
new cabinets, the maximum allowed is 1. The proposed replacement signs are 3.5 feet, the maximum
height allowed is 1.5 feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting it was
redeveloped in 2014 with 194 dwelling units in a 5-story building. The property and building are both
L-shaped. Previous signs on the building were approved prior to the latest sign code update. In this
zone district, only one wall sign is allowed and it must be on the wall with street frontage, in this case
that would be on West Plum Street. Currently, there are at least 2 signs along West Plum and another
sign on each side of the building. The code also limits the size of the sign to 1.5 feet and the existing
sign cabinets exceed this limit. Since these are legal non-conforming signs, the owner does have the
option to reface the signs without a variance. In this case they are requesting to remove the non-
conforming signs in their entirety and put up new signs.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 October 10, 2019
Vice Chair LaMastra asked how sign code addresses sign height when it’s located on the side of a
tall building and how the sign is legible from such a far distance. Beals referred to a picture and
explained the lettering on these banners are about a foot and a half in height and they are still legible.
The sign code limits this zone specifically for this type of use as it’s more residential than commercial.
Boardmember Meyer questioned the existing signs and asked if they met sign code when
constructed. Beals confirmed this was the case, but the new sign code was adopted almost a year
ago. Meyer would like to know the difference between replacing the sign cabinet versus refacing the
sign. Beals explained the cabinet of the sign includes the entire structure, and if someone chooses to
take down the non-conforming sign, they do not have the opportunity to replace it with something
new. If something new is put up it needs to be in compliance with current code. If you keep the
structure of the non-conforming sign, then they could just replace the face of the structure, where the
logo or marketing piece is located.
Applicant Presentation:
Timothy Eunice, with the Visual Edge Signs and Design in Centennial, addressed the board. There
are currently 5 signs, the proposal is not to remove the chasse of the sign, but to modify a face to fit
on the existing chasse. It would be no taller and no wider than what is already in place.
Beals explained the existing signs have a unique shape and the new proposal would be going to a
rectangular shape which would alter the structure of the sign. Non-conforming signs need to maintain
the same shape and size. The 2 signs are generally the same size, but a different shape. Mr. Eunice
stated the local almost diamond-like shape is part of the previous company’s branding, and cannot be
reused. Union is a rectangular logo and the new sign would make a rectangle out of that current
shape. They will not touch the base plate that is already in place, just mount a new rectangle on top
of it.
Vice Chair LaMastra stated this is ultimately adding square footage to a non-conforming sign.
Boardmember Stockover requested the dimensions of current sign. Mr. Eunice confirmed the center
of the current diamond shaped sign is 42 inches tall and the bottom corners will add another 6 inches
down on each end. Therefore, adding over 4 square feet per sign.
Boardmember Long reviewed the documents submitted for this variance which depicts a new
rectangular box, with an X manually drawn through it, with the sign to be redesigned to fit the existing
sign chasse. There are no plans provided for the new sign. Mr. Eunice stated the engineering wasn’t
going to be done unless the variance was approved. It will be a piece of aluminum cut to make up for
the bare spots, attached to the existing sign chasse, then the light panel attached on top and exterior
cabinet chasse attached on top of that.
Boardmember Stockover stated that they are overhanging the existing base plate on the corners. Mr.
Eunice confirmed that is the case, and they are providing additional backing so there is no light
leakage.
Mr. Eunice stated 1.5 feet at 6 stories up is not visible to anybody.
Audience Participation: None.
Board Discussion:
Vice Chair LaMastra recognized the size issue at a distance, but this is also quantity. This becomes
two issues: the number of signs and the logo itself. Trying to push this across 5 signs is not nominal
and inconsequential.
Boardmember Long stated if a business is lucky enough to have this non-conforming signage, then
they can design their sign face within those constraints. He is not inclined to approve this variance
even with adequate plans, let alone without. Strict adherence to the Fort Collins sign code is a
significant characteristic of our town compared to those around us. The only party that doesn’t like the
sign code is the entity applying for the sign.
Vice Chair LaMastra would recommend denial as presented.
Boardmember discussion regarding painting the sign structure the color of the building versus the
structural alteration of the cabinet.
Boardmember Shuff stated to work within the current cabinet would be challenging, but there is an
avenue to do that, and he cannot support the larger sign.
Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to deny ZBA190041 for the
following reasons: an increase of 4 additional signs when the max is 1 is not nominal or
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 October 10, 2019
inconsequential as the appearance of sign clutter increases, insufficient evidence has been
provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be
in compliance with the standard, a nonconforming sign can be refaced, insufficient evidence
has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well
or better than a proposal that complies with the standards.
Boardmember Stockover commented he has moved his adult daughters often and he has never
looked at a sign on a multi-family residential building. He uses online searches and reviews of the
complex, awareness is now via computers not signs. Fort Collins sign code is very important, and he
is concerned with this work-around of keeping the original sign structure. A work around should be
bringing the sign into compliance.
Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Stockover, Shields, Long, Shuff, Meyer. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED.
•ADJOURNMENT
Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning