Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/14/2019Ralph 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 NOVEMBER 14, 2019 9:30 AM •CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL •APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve the October 10, 2019 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. •CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) •APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1.APPEAL ZBA190044 – DENIED Address: 201 S. College Ave. Owner: Fort Collins Museum of Art Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano, DaVinci Sign Systems Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.1[G][3][a]; 3.8.7.2[G][1]; 3.8.7.2[G][2] Project Description: This is a request to build an additional primary freestanding monument style sign at 201 S. College Ave. This building is in the (D) Downtown district and would require the following 3 variances: 1) Exceed the limit of 1 primary sign allowed per frontage. The proposed sign would be the third freestanding sign. 2) Exceed the height limit of 7 feet when setback 0 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is 11 feet tall setback 0 feet. 3) Allow an animated/wind driven design, such designs are prohibited. The proposed sign contains a "spinning" wind driven element. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The proposed sign would be placed on the north side of the current staircase at the building’s entrance. The proposal is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 November 14, 2019 for the sign to be 11 feet in height, have a center portion that spins from wind, and to be illuminated with multiple colors. Currently there is a tenant directory sign on the south side of the stairs. There is also an agave leaf, which is freestanding, representing the Blue Agave restaurant also in the building. The agave leaf does count as a sign since it is marketing for the business and the directory sign also counts toward the total amount of signs. The Museum of Art currently has a banner on the front of their building and a sandwich board sign, both of which are within code and are not counted as freestanding signs. The request is for a new sign to be right on the property line, which limits the height to 7 feet. Also, code prohibits any animation or motion of signs, whether wind-driven or not. Boardmember Meyer asked about the allowed signage per tenant. Beals confirmed that only one freestanding sign is allowed per building. This is common among current buildings, usually they use a directory type sign to address all tenants. There are additional signs attached to the building, which is not what we are addressing, they are allowed signs on the building itself. Discussion regarding signs versus art. According to the definition of a sign, this agave leaf would qualify as a sign. The element and color are used for the marketing of their business. Boardmember McCoy asked about the current banner sign and sandwich board on the stairs landing and asked if these count towards the total signage for the building. Beals explained these do not count towards the overall sign allowance as they are temporary. In this case, the permit allows the banner to be up for three months to advertise the exhibits on display in the museum. Permits can also be issued for the sandwich board sign from the engineering department to encroach into the public right of way. Boardmember Stockover requested additional information on the time limit for banners as this is different than the south end of town. Beals confirmed this schedule is specific to this type of banner in the Downtown district. Boardmember Shuff asked for clarification on the setback and height requirements when moved further from the property line. Beals will locate the exact code and report back. Assistant City Attorney VanHall clarified the definition of sign in our code, the exclusion is regarding works of art that do not include commercial speech. Commercial speech is any speech proposing a commercial transaction. Speech is a broad term, including graphics, writing, etc. and would be included in commercial transaction. Beals described the sign code setbacks, from 0-5 feet from the property line the sign would be limited to 7 feet in height, between 5-10 feet in setback the height is 8.5 feet, 10-15 feet in setback would be 10 feet in height and the numbers continue to increase. Boardmember Meyers asked if the blue agave leave was permitted and if there was a variance request as that was the second freestanding sign. Beals confirmed it was permitted, but not sure if there was a variance request or not. It’s possible the structure could have been placed as art and the owner was informed afterwards that it would count as a sign, requiring a permit. Applicant Presentation: John Shaw, representing DaVinci Signs Systems, and also serves on the museum board. Mr. Shaw has a long history with signs and they do not apply for a variance lightly. The museum currently has an identity crisis, the banner sign identifies the exhibit on display, but most people don’t realize this is the museum of art. The directory sign is used for all tenants in the building and it does not indicate the Museum of Art is the main owner/occupant of the building. Regarding the agave leaf sign/sculpture, Mr. Shaw believes this building would qualify for 2 freestanding signs as it has 2 street frontages – College and Oak Street even though Oak is a plaza. The agave leaf does not have verbiage and he considers it art. Museums across the country have been given more latitude regarding signage. The MOA letters are designed to be whimsical; the portion that turns is 18 inches in diameter and can be turned manually to engage pedestrians. They have no other area to place the sign. This building has specific rules under historic preservation, therefore items cannot be mounted on the face of the building. The banner itself is a challenge, there are cables that go into the ground, nothing permanently holds it to the building. The proposed sign is meant to be pedestrian friendly. There are trees, light fixtures, etc. as part of the plaza and the museum gets lost in the mix. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the sign needs to be 11 feet in height. Mr. Shaw explained this is based on overall design and the other existing elements including the directory sign to be similar in height. LaMastra inquired if the “MOA” letters are something that will be easily recognized as the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 November 14, 2019 Museum of Art. Mr. Shaw replied maybe not. However, the sculpture attracts your attention and the “Museum of Art” is then printed at about 2 inches in height on the middle piece of the sign. LaMastra requested more information on how this helps to identify the business if the name is 2 inches in height on a piece of the sign that can rotate away from viewers. Mr. Shaw replied this size would allow both pedestrians and motorists in slow traffic to be able to able read the sign. The point is to spark interest and engage people to take a closer look. Boardmember Meyer wanted to clarify if the Museum of Art text is written on both sides, Mr. Shaw confirmed it is. Mr. Shaw also confirmed the MOA letters are one foot in depth with layering so they can still be seen from the side. Boardmember Shuff asked about the location in Oak Street Plaza, the nature of this area means the sign could be climbed on by children. Mr. Shaw explained they discourage kids from climbing on everything already, the current sign, the railing, etc. Shuff also asked about the Directory sign height, which is 10-11 feet. They are hoping to have 2 signs of similar height flanking the stairway. Lisa Hatchadoorian, Executive Director of the Museum, addressed the board. The museum has been in this community since 1983 and in this building since 1990. This is a 1911 second renaissance revival building. The museum features modern and contemporary art of local regional and national artists. They do get a lot of walk-in traffic, most of that is because of the exhibit banner. The building itself is a heavy, blank building and people don’t always realize they are there and open. For the past couple of years they have been making an effort to be more visible to the public, specifically from the Oak Street Plaza side. There are walls over the windows, the public cannot see anything coming from the inside especially at night during this darker time of year, and they want to grow their street presence. They have been fundraising for a couple of years for this sign and they would like the board’s support. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about nighttime visibility. The document submitted to the board says the proposed sign is non-illuminated. The applicant replied they are going to discuss external lighting. Discussion regarding lights pointing up and if they are allowed by code versus lights pointed down and how they would be attached to the landmarked building. The lighting will affect how the sign looks, that information would be appreciated. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned if they looked at revising the existing tenant directory sign. The applicant replied that they do not consider the sign theirs to change, that is Brinkman’s sign. There is also a tenant directory sign inside the building as well. Brinkman was never approached on re-doing the current sign. Boardmember Stockover inquired how long they plan to occupy this space. Ms. Hatchadoorian confirmed they do own the building with Brinkman, and they intend to be there forever. Mr. Shaw addressed the board again regarding the sign lighting. The initial design was for the whole sign to spin and therefore it would have been non-illuminated. Now the main part is static and only the small middle portion is spinning so they can illuminate the sign itself. The sign would either be non- illuminated or halo-illuminated. Audience Participation: Lili Francuz, boardmember of the museum, addressed the board. In the early 80’s she remembers visiting this building and the only reason she knew where it was located was when she was informed it was the old post office. Currently when she tells friends about an exhibit they still don’t know where the museum of art is unless she tells people it’s in the old post office building. She believes the proposed sign will increase traffic to above 30%. Cheryl Rogers, 230 Jackson Ave., addressed the board. She has been the proprietor of the museum for 30 years and continually explains to people where the museum is located. The banner on the building has a description of the exhibits, but they are not allowed to put their name on the banner, which also causes confusion. It would benefit the community to know where the museum is located. Ryan Norton, 201 S. College, addressed the board. Mr. Norton is a community member, born and raised in Fort Collins. He believes we can use this opportunity to propel Fort Collins forward and showcase another amenity available in our city. This is the right thing to do for this museum and this community. Board Discussion: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 November 14, 2019 Chair Shields asked staff about the Oak Street frontage comments. Beals explained that currently, Oak Street Plaza does not count as street frontage or public right of way. The language in our code defines public right of way as used for carrying car traffic. It’s possible this was approved under previous code and that Oak Street Plaza might have been considered a street frontage at that time. That does affect their current sign allowance. Boardmember Meyers asked about increasing their building frontage in order to increase their allowed signage. Beals confirmed there are 2 ways to calculate your sign allowance, based on the property line frontage, or building frontage. The City allows the greater of the two. This calculation does include both freestanding signs and wall-mounted signage. Boardmember McCoy questioned the historic preservation guidelines for wall mounted signs. Beals confirmed that historic preservation does review how the sign attaches to the building material. Proposals such as these have potential to go in front of the landmark preservation commission. Beals also addressed the applicant and explained they can have further discussion regarding Museum of Art verbiage on the exhibit banner. Boardmember Shuff stated the blue agave leaf is questionable as a sign, but he understands the color aspect and that Oak Street Plaza is not considered a street frontage. Vice Chair LaMastra understands using the company colors would still be considered signage as it ties back to the business. We don’t know the history on whether that was approved based on Oak Street being considered a public right of way or not. Regardless, this proposal is a large increase in signage, doubling the number of signs along College Ave. Chair Shields suggested they focus on College Avenue signage. The directory sign is more of a directory bar, but technically counts toward the number of signs. Boardmember Stockover requested specifications regarding directory signs, he thought they had to be 2 feet by 2 feet, 4 square feet. Beals confirmed traditionally those are the dimensions, however regarding freestanding sign regulations, the directory sign would still count as a sign. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned why re-doing the existing directory sign was not addressed with Brinkman. Boardmember Shuff commented the directory sign does fit into the design elements of Oak Street Plaza. There is a level of consistency, however the directory sign is somewhat ineffective. By adding another sign of similar scale, they may start to compete with each other. Vice Chair LaMastra is not inclined to grant two freestanding signs within a 12 foot span when the option to re-do the current sign was not pursued. Boardmember Stockover agreed the museum might have an identity crisis, when reading this proposal he was not sure which building this was referring to. However, Stockover believes this proposal would add to the sign clutter and still not accomplish the goal of driving traffic to their location. He is not willing to support a variance on the sign code if he doesn’t feel it will be successful. Even without the blue agave sculpture/sign, the number of signs is still being doubled. Vice Chair LaMastra stated that seeing the MOA letters would not communicate what this business is. The 2 inch lettering on a rotating panel does not convey their message and is not solving the marketing issue. There is already sign clutter in place and she cannot support adding another sign especially at this size and scale. Boardmember McCoy liked the sign itself, but can’t accept 2 monument signs on the front of the building. This is such a recognized building in Fort Collins, there is no other like it. Chair Shields stated he also really liked the sign, but would like to see coordination with other tenants regarding signage for this building. Boardmember Meyer believes there should be an exception within sign code for museums as they provide a cultural experience. It almost seems there was an oversight when the first sign was constructed. Would suggest the applicant pursues a redesign of the existing sign. Boardmember Shuff liked the sign as it makes a statement. Thinks the moving part is kinetic, not animated, so there are no issues for him. The flanking of 2 competing signs on either side of the stairs adds to the visual clutter. If there is already a directory within the building, then work with your partner to revise the current sign. Vice Chair LaMastra would be more supportive of one sign that is over the allowable height, making a statement as a sculpture, than 2 oversized signs 12-15 feet apart from each other. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 November 14, 2019 Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to deny ZBA190044 for the following reasons: the existing number of freestanding signs exceeds the standard by 100% and this would increase it even more, the one current freestanding sign could be redesigned, and insufficient evidence has been provided to determine if the proposal is detrimental to the public good. Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, LaMastra, Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED. •OTHER BUSINESS 2020 Annual Work Plan •ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning