Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 01/13/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Acting Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting will be held virtually 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 JANUARY 13, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members except Lawton were present • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the December 9, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) Acting Chair La Mastra asked all members of the Commission to please indicate their preference for returning to in-person hearings. Please state whether or not you would be willing to return to in -person, and when. This can be done verbally now, or via email to Claire Havelda and Noah Beals. Our meetings tend to be small (under 20 people), which should provide for plenty of space for social distancing if we were to return to meeting in Council chambers. Commission member Meyer agreed. La Mastra made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to request that all mem bers send their preference regarding a return to in-person meetings by the end of the week to Noah Beals. The motion passed unanimously. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210049 - APPROVED Address: 243 N College Ave Owner: Ent Credit Union Petitioner: Brian Rowedder, Director of Marketing Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Project Description: LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 December 12, 2021 This is a request to display a 6-foot-tall wall sign on the ATM machine. The maximum height for a wall sign in the Downtown sign district is 4.5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located near the corner of Maple St. and N College Ave. This building was originally built as a carwash, was then converted to an office, and now serves as a financial institution. The request is for a sign to be larger than what is allowed for the first story of a building. Beals explained the sign in question is located around the ATM that was installed on the north side of the building, near the entrance. The entrance faces into the north parking lot and is approximately 50 feet from the public sidewalk. Beals showed photographs of the ATM in situ as viewed from the sidewalk as well as the parking lot for reference. The sign in question is currently taller than allowable according to code. Commission member Shuff asked for clarification from Beals regarding the difference in proposed and allowable sign heights. Beals indicated that the applicant is requesting a sign that is just over six feet; the maximum allowable under code is 4.5 feet. Shuff asked if they need the variance for other elements in addition to height; Beals indicated in the affirmative. Commission member Meyer asked if all the colors and design elements included in the ATM surround were all considered part of the “sign”. Beals indicated in the affirmative, stating that all images and colors are part of the applicant’s marketing colors and images. Meyer asked that if the mountain image was no longer in place, would the resulting red surround still be considered signage, or would the 18 inch “Ent” sign therefore be considered the only sign? Beals clarified that the red color surround is an element of the applicants marketing and branding, and so is still considered signage. Application Presentation: Fred Jacobs, 243 N College, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Jacobs stated explained that he is a colleague of Brian Rowedder, petitioner of record. Rowedder is Jacobs’ supervisor; Jacobs serves as Manger for Media Relations and Sponsorships. Jacobs asked if there would be any change if the ATM surround were simply black all around. Beals indicated it would still be considered signage, because black is a primary color in the applicant’s marketing materials. Jacobs indicated there was a previous mix-up between the architect and sign vendor, who had not worked previously in Fort Collins. Some previous sign elements that had been inc luded have already been removed. Unfortunately, the shell for the ATM is not reusable due to it being custom fabricated to the space. This will result in some additional expense and waste. Jacobs asked if the surround were a color not included in their marketing palette, would it change the element from being defined as a sign. Beals explained the easiest thing would be to remove the bottom portion of the sign, which would then bring the remaining sign element closer into compliance within the allowable height. Acting Chair La Mastra asked Jacobs if the front/face panel surrounding the ATM could be removed/replaced. Jacobs responded that may be possible; the front is probably covered with vinyl currently and could potentially be re-covered with alternate vinyl surfacing. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff commented that based on the justification, this is less hardship than it is nominal and inconsequential. The sign does clearly exceed code; but the other consideration is the location of the ATM, which is set into the building façade and not clearly viewable from many viewpoints. If this were set into the College Ave. façade that feeling may be different. Shuff stated that in his opinion, these factors lead him to a justification based on nominal and inconsequential. Also, if the vinyl graphic were changed, it’s still there as a border with a visual impact. So, that may not play much into his consideration. Acting Chair La Mastra remarked that to her, the red color utilized in the border is quite impactful. If it were black, it would fit in better with the building and look more like the existing black window DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 December 12, 2021 surrounds. This does not appear to be a hardship justification. The Board has previously discussed what constitutes a hardship (re-using existing signs, etc.), and we need to be careful about what truly constitutes a hardship – it is intended to refer to something outside of one’s control. This does not appear to be that. La Mastra commented that she would be open to approving the request, with the condition that the outside border (currently red with white mountains) be changed to black/gray, or similar that is less “fanciful” or visually impactful. Commission member Meyer agreed with the comments of Shuff and La Mastra regarding the differentiation between hardship and nominal and inconsequential justifications. The applicant is in control of changing the sign element if needed. Regarding color, if it changes to any other color that is not already present on the building, it will become more of a sign, because sign code states that it is defined by the marketing colors that are being used. Meyer agreed with Shuff’s assessment that the placement of the ATM/sign keeps it out of general view. For these reasons, Meyer is in support of granting the request on the justification of being nominal and inconsequential. Commission Member McCoy voiced his support to approve the request on the basis of nominal and inconsequential. La Mastra expressed her position of not supporting approval of the request and stated that she was not on board with the red/white mountain motif, as felt that the location of the ATM/sign did in fact make it more visible to southbound traffic on College Ave. La Mastra encouraged other members of the Board to make a motion for approval if they felt so inclined. Commission member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA210049 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the sign area is missing a middle section; the sign does not directly abut the public sidewalk. 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. Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Meyer Nays: La Mastra THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210050 - APPROVED Address: 2555 Joseph Allen Dr Owner: Ft. Collins VOA Senior Housing LLC Petitioner: Mark Tweed / Mark Tweed Design Inc. Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Project Description: 1) Only 1 (one) wall sign is allowed per frontage, 3.8.7.2 Cabinet Wall Signs or Dimensional Wall Signs, Table (B). Sign Types EX-A and EX-B are shown on the same elevation. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, commenting that the notice was originally posted with a longer list of items included in the variance request. Staff has worked with the applicant to narrow the request down to one request, which is to have two wall signs on one elevation. In the L-M-N zone district, code allows for only one wall sign per elevation. Beals described the property, noting it is located on the corner of Drake Rd and Joseph Allen Dr. It is currently under construction, and when complete will be a three-story multi-unit building. The development is geared towards senior living. Beals showed a rendering of the south elevation, indicating the area where the signs would be located. The current request is for two signs, one reading “Cadence” and the other “Volunteers of America”. The request comes from having the size of the sign DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 December 12, 2021 to appropriate for legibility, but not having enough room along the lower portion of the wall to include all the wording. Thus, it has been proposed to be split between two signs on the same elevation. Both signs are internally illuminated and would extend out from the wall approximately 3 inches. The development does face some residential neighborhoods to the south, across Drake Rd. Drake Road is a four-lane arterial roadway at this location. The next-closest intersection is Drake and Timberline, where a large grocery store and related retail development is located. Commission member McCoy asked Beals for clarification regarding the need for a variance. Based on the footage along the street, wouldn’t the applicant have plenty of space for signs? Beals responded that the applicant has plenty of overall sign allowance. However, within the residential sign code, it restricts how many wall signs can be placed on any given elevation. Commission member Shuff stated his agreement with McCoy’s question, and thanked Beals for the clarification. Shuff clarified that if the two signs were combined, would they be allowed under code; a need for a variance arises because the two signs are intended to be installed in two separate locations on the same wall. Beals answered in the affirmative. Acting Chair La Mastra asked Beals if the building face being discussed also functions as the main entry door for the property. Beals stated that this area is not a main entry but is instead a patio area for residents. The main entry is located on the north, facing the main interior parking lot. Beals explained that Volunteers of America is the developer/owner of the project, and wanted to market the project as VOA, and have named this development Cadence. There are not VOA or other offices included in the development. Application Presentation: Doug Snyder, VP-Regional Real Estate Development, 2660 Larimer St, Denver, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Snyder provided information regarding the project, stating Cadence is a 55-unit, affordable senior (55+) development, wh ich is intended to open May 2022. The request today centers around the justification of “equally well or better -than”, as presented and discussed. Snyder explained when the signs are pushed together, it diminishes the impact of both. Sign designer Mark Tweed could not attend the hearing today, and Mark has been involved in the marketing and branding of the development. Snyder commented that the separating and centering of the two signs creates more visual balance and fits within the building architecture. Also, by separating the two lines of information, the Cadence sign stands alone and effectively identifies the residential building. Having VOA on its own honors the organization in full. As far as moving the VOA signature lower, it reduces the amount illuminated sign elements higher, reducing light glare to neighboring properties. Additionally, the overall size of the signs is within the allowable square footage. Both lines of letters meet the 18-inch maximum height as allowed by code. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer shared his thoughts considering the overall area of the signage being underneath the limit and stated he could understand and visualize how cramped the sign would look if it were all on one line. The sign may be more of a nuisance if it were all jammed in to one line; this is a much cleaner, better solution. It appears to be inconsequential; Meyer stated his support for granting of the variance. Commission member Shuff agreed with Meyer’s assessment. Shuff added the branding for the property appears to match the tone of the building, and that alone fits in with the overall palette. The VOA portion has a bit more visual punch, but that impact is limited by placing the sign lower, as proposed. Shuff commented the L-M-N zone is interesting, as it is big and broad zoning, and this development represents the more-dense end of that spectrum. This portion of that zoning that touches a busy intersection, with large apartment complexes and retail develop ments already in place. Given the nature of how far that arterial is across the street from other residences, that context has a lot to do DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 December 12, 2021 with supporting the justification that this is equal to or better than, as has been proposed. Shuff is in support of the variance request. Commission member McCoy voiced his agreement with the statements of Meyer and Shuff and stated that he is in support of granting the variance as requested. Acting Chair La Mastra voiced her agreement with the statements of Meyer, Shuff, and McCoy. La Mastra stated that she is in support of granting the variance as requested. This could also be argued as inconsequential as well. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE ZBA210050 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the signs do not exceed the allowable square footage or height; the sign placement fit within the articulations of the building created by the varying material. 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. Yeas: Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA210051 - DENIED Address: 1218 Canvasback Ct Owner/Petitioner: Lee Xiang Hong Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: This is request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area by 166 square feet by enclosing a patio area on more than three (3) sides by adding four (4) windows and a door. In the R-L (low density residential) zone district, the allowable maximum floor area is one-third (1/3) of the square footage of the lot. This is the third request to increase the allowable floor area for the lot. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, commenting that this Board has seen this property at least two times previously, with the most recent review occurring in December 2020. That was a request to enclose the lower patio. The other request was to enclose a front porch. Each enclosure has been incremental. This current request asks to enclose a semi-open upper patio on the back of the residence. Beals noted the property sits on Canvasback Ct, with Lemay drive nearby to the west. It backs on to an HOA tract of land with greenery and pond. Beals shared drawings provided by the applicant that show the intended enclosure, wherein four windows and a patio door would be added to the upper patio to make it fully enclosed. The previously enclosed lower patio can be seen in the photos. The open patio to the west will remain open on upper and lower levels. Beals noted that one email was received from a neighbor who stated that construction appeared to have already begun. Based on a comparison between photos taken in 2020 and 2022, it do es not appear that construction has begun. Acting Chair La Mastra stated she did recall seeing this property previously. She asked the board if her recollection was correct in that the previous request was centered in part on a desire to provide interior space for dogs, which were known to bark and cause disturbance. La Mastra asked if any other members of the Board remembered details of the 2020 variance request and approval. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 6 December 12, 2021 Beals confirmed that part of the 2020 request was an attempt to minimize nois e from the applicant’s barking dogs. That reasoning has also been included in the current request. Application Presentation: Jackie Bin Long Hue and applicant Lee Xiang Hong (Jason), addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Bin Long Hue, on behalf of applicant Lee, stated the variance was being requested in part to provide enclosed work out/exercise space for the applicant, who is unable to exercise at a gym. Enclosing the upper patio would provide the applicant with enclose d space which is also separated from dogs/pets in the home. Additionally, a neighbor was recently approved for additional enclosure measuring more than 50% of existing square footage, which is above the code standard; this may be a precedent for approval. Acting Chair La Mastra questioned the reasoning behind the request for variance. The application expressed a desire to create more interior room for pets, but now the reasoning given is to create an interior space intended for exercise and working out. T he stated intent of the previous application was also to create a space for pets. The applicant stated that their goal was twofold, to create exercise space as well as additional space for pets. The desire to create a workout room is driven in part by the restrictions placed upon gyms due to the current COVID pandemic protection measures. Audience Participation: Joel Larner, 6325 Cattail Ct., Ft. Collins, CO addressed the Board and provided comment. Larner offered the viewpoints that he has heard from numerous of his neighbors, who are very frustrated at the continual growth and add-on to this property beyond the zoning limits that are there. The upper level was approved and built; then there was work done that was not approved and had to thus seek retroactive approval (2020 enclosure of the lower level). Larner stated that in his discussions with the applicant, the applicant did express a desire to mitigate the barking of their German Shepherd. Lerner adds that the dog is often at the fence line, unattended, barking. Enclosing the upper patio will not remedy this situation, as the dog is predominantly barking at people walking by the fence along the trail. Larner indicated that he has received feedback from many neighbors who are frustrated, as this appears to be “a lump added to a lump, added to a lump” on the property, and it is now getting larger than what appears appropriate for the lot. Larner commented that he does not view the request as a “hardship”, requiring continuous addition and enclosure of t he upper level. The proposed enclosure does not strike Larner as being attractive, and it will result in something that neighbors have to look at day in and day out. Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy stated he had some concerns about this being a third request to increase enclosed square footage on the property. However, there really isn’t any difference between the 2020 picture and 2022 picture. McCoy stated his willingness to hear from other Board members, as his decision is not yet made. Commission member Meyer appreciated the comments and input offered by Larner, and stated the time to stop this construction would have been before the roof went over the patio. Meyer commented that adding windows and a patio door to spaces that appear to already be framed to accept windows and doors is somewhat nominal and inconsequential at this point. The structure is already there in place; adding windows would not make this structure feel any more “massive” than it does currently. Meyer asked Noah to confirm his understanding of past requests: the applicant came before the Board in 2016 to request more square footage on the front of the home, which was subsequently approved and completed. The applicant again came before the Board in 2020, requesting enclosure of the rear patio resulting in more square footage. That work was also subsequently approved and completed. The current request asks for additional enclosure. When this is all said and done, how much over the total allowable square footage will they be? La Mastra also stated her confusion, asking if the 8.4% refers to this specific application or all of them combined. Meyer concurred with La Mastra’s line of questioning. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 7 December 12, 2021 Commission member Shuff attempted to clarify, stating that the first additio n increased square footage by 4.6% in 2016. In 2020, the increase grew from 4.6% to 6.5% according to the Staff Report. Meyer questioned the math, stating that the second addition should have resulted in larger net increase. Shuff re-ran the numbers and determined that the 8.4% included is accurate. Meyer commented that the allowable increase according to code is 33 1/3%; while the total increase in square footage if the third request is granted would be 41.7%. Meyer asked if it can be considered nominal and inconsequential if this type of addition/enclosure is performed three times in a row? Shuff agreed with Meyer’s questioning, commenting that addition of windows and doors will make the structure appear significantly more solid. There is a reason why this zone district has a defined increase percentage. There is more of a fundamental principal of whether it is ok to push almost double-digit percentage more than allowable. Does performing that work incrementally make any difference compared to doing it all at once? If this Board were asked to the same work to be done at once, would be think about it differently? In Shuff’s opinion, it does. At what point is it too much when considered as a whole? La Mastra added that her struggle with this request is that it appears to have almost been built with the intention of future finishing/enclosure. La Mastra offers her understanding of the barking dog issue but commented there are other ways outside of the Land Use Code to control that issue, with things like dog training collars, training aids, etc. that work in humane ways to control barking. As a justification for this, we’ve already approved previous enclosures for barking animals. That apparently hasn’t worked, and they may need to provide other avenues to control that. Regarding exercise space, La Mastra has difficulty approving in that way. Agreeing with Shuff, La Mastra commented it seems nominal adding the windows and doors in, but it will remove the depth and feeling of openness present in the current architecture. La Mastra does not feel she can support the variance request. Commission member McCoy believes a motion should be made; La Mastra, as Acting Chair, does not want to be the one to offer the motion but instead would like to hear from all members of the Board. Shuff agreed with La Mastra, voicing is difficulty in approving this request. Commission Member McCoy made a motion, seconded by Meyer to DENY appeal ZBA210051. Shuff offered an amendment, adding justification for the following reaso ns: an 8.4% increase is not nominal or inconsequential based on the applicant’s submittal, and the fact that nominal and consequential is not a justification based on what is being proposed for this zone district, as well as what has been offered through public comment. McCoy accepted the amendment. Yeas: Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 4. APPEAL ZBA210052 - APPROVED Address: 116 N Washington Ave Owner/Petitioner: Robyn M Dolgin Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1) Project Description: This is a request to use a 10-foot x 8-foot shed to store materials relating to a horticultural design and maintenance home business. Issuance of home occupation license pending approval of va riance to allow use of storage shed. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, commenting that this Board has seen similar requests for a home occupation to use an accessory building as a part of the home occupation. Beals explained our standards are built in a way to keep the home occupation subordinate to the primary use, which is residential. One of those standards is to that one can’t operate in an accessory building that is detached from the house. Business activities must occur in the DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 8 December 12, 2021 primary house, and only in up to 50% of the primary house. In this case, the homeowner is requesting to store business materials in an existing shed on the property. Beals noted the property is located mid-block along Washington Ave. and does have an alley running along the back. The shed is located on the south-east corner of the property, in the rear of the home. Other out buildings are also present to the north and west of the shed. The shed is 10 feet by 9.5 feet. The business being run by the home occupant is horticultural in nature, and they are seeking to store associated supplies and materials in the shed. Street-view pictures of the property show outbuildings visible, though the proposed shed is not visible from Washington Ave. Th e shed is visible from the rear alley. Similar requests in the past have been to build a new shed and then use it for business storage; this shed is pre-existing. Application Presentation: Robyn Dolgin, 116 N Washington Ave, Fort Collins, CO addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Dolgin stated that the pictures presented by Beals depict with accuracy the situation of the shed as it sits currently. The shed is in alignment with the other buildings along the west side of the alley. The small shed near the trashcans is an old potting house that will eventually be demolished and doesn’t have good standing height for a ladder. The detached garage (larger building between alley and house) wouldn’t be functional as a storage shed and would represent a hardship having to haul tools in and out. Dolgin stated that the use of the shed for storage would be low impact, adding that her helper tends to arrive by bicycle and thus does not add additional vehicular traffic to the area/alleyway. Dolgin also offered that she had never received any comments from neighbors that they had issues. Vice Chair La Mastra asked the applicant if the shed would primarily be used to load up tools in the mornings and/or evenings. The applicant answered in the affirmative. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff began the discussion, commenting he did not have any concerns with the proposed use. The impact would appear to be minimal, and no additional buildings are being proposed. Shuff stated he was in support of the request. Commission member Meyer stated he was in support of the request, noting that it seemed to be very nominal and inconsequential. Commission member McCoy stated he was in support of the request. Acting Chair La Mastra stated she was in support of the request, commenting that did not appear to be any significant change if the variance were approved. La Mastra asked a member of the Board to make a motion. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE ZBA210052 based on the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; a landscape company may operate as a home occupation provided that materials and/or tools are concealed and there are not more than one additional employee at the home; the accessory structure is existing; if the primary structure included an attached garage or shed it would be considered as a part of the dwelling; the primary use of the property will remain a residence; the owner will reside at the residence in the primary building. Therefore, the granting of the modification of standard would not diverge from the standard except 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 contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 9 December 12, 2021 *Acting Chair La Mastra requested that the Board take a 3 minute break, beginning at 9:48am. The Board agreed, and a break was taken. The Hearing was resumed at 9:51am and roll call was taken* ROLL CALL: All Commission members except Lawton were present. 5. APPEAL ZBA210053 – POSTPONED Address: 134 Lyons St Owner/Petitioner: Gregg Smith Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5) Project Description: This is a request to build a 640 square foot accessory building with habitable space, which will be 40 square feet over the 600 square foot maximum allowed for accessory buildings in the N -C-L zone. 6. APPEAL ZBA210054 - APPROVED Address: 2721 S College Ave, Unit 7 Owner: JCRS II Colfax LLC Petitioner: Adam Ray Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(C) Project Description: This is a request to display window signs that cover more than 50% of the architecturally distinct window. In the commercial/industrial sign district, a window sign cover s up to 50% of the architecturally distinct window. A sign permit for the window signs will need to be applied for pending approval of this variance. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noti ng the property is located on S College, between S College and McClelland Dr., south of Thunderbird Dr. The building has multiple retail and commercial tenants. The applicant, Games Ahoy, would like to use window signs covering 100% of their windows. Games Ahoy is located closer to the Dollar store, near the middle of the development. Beals showed a diagram of the proposed sign location, noting that the windows would be 100% covered with applied graphics, though the door would remain uncovered. The Code is trying to retain the use of a window, understating that blinds or other mechanisms could be used to provide coverage throughout the day as the light changes. However, to have 100% of the window covered is not the intent of the code. The intent is to reduce sign clutter as well as maintain the integrity of the window’s transparency. Adjacent tenants have similar large expanses of windows, but they are not covered up with signage at this time. Acting Chair La Mastra asked Beals if the 50% limit applied to each windowpane individually or was calculated as 50% of the total window area. Beals responded in general, it is based on the architecturally significant portion of the window and doesn’t include window mullions. In this case, it would be considered as 50% of the area between the front door and end of the row of windows. Commission member Shuff also asked if the 50% was taken against the total space, which would provide some flexibility when determining how best to cover the allowed 50%. La Mastra commented that even if the entire bottom portion of the signs were removed, it would appear to still be over the allowed 50% due to the bottom windowpanes being smaller than the upper portions. Commission member McCoy asked Beals if the building signage l imitations would also affect the limits of allowable window signs. Beals confirmed that once a window sign as over six square feet, then it starts to count against the building sign allowance. La Mastra asked Beals if he knew where the applicant was in terms of their sign limit. Beals responded that he would need to perform a bit more investigation to determine that answer, as the entire building has a sign limit which is divided amongst DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 10 December 12, 2021 the various multiple tenants. There may be sign allowance left, but it is unknown how much each tenant is allotted based on their lease agreements, etc. Commission member Shuff commented if we can’t find that answer, if perhaps that could be a condition of any potential approval/denial. The obvious question is whether they exceed their allowance of overall signage, but within the confines of the bigger topic we can look at this individual signage component. La Mastra stated she would feel differently depending on how the signage is distributed. If it is calculated for that entire building, it doesn’t seem like a great approach to approve something that would give this tenant more than their fair share of signage, especially if it would prevent another tenant from putting up more signage should they desire. Shuff agreed, sta ting it was a probably a property management issue wherein signage is distributed based on square footage, etc. Application Presentation: Adam Ray, 926 Delphinus Pl, Loveland, CO 80357, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Ray commented he was unsure of how sign allotment was divided amongst the neighboring tenants. Ray stated that when he signed the current lease, he exp lained to the landlord that this type of signage is part of their “look”. They have two stores in Loveland, and those locations have similar vinyl decals on their windows. Ray stated the landlord had previously approved the vinyl decals before signing the contract; Ray has also spoken to neighboring tenants who think the windows look good and are in support of them. Ray added the vinyl decals are perforated, and are completely transparent from the outside at night, as well as being always transparent from the inside. Ray added that the Arsenal Soccer Club sign is over the western half of the Games Ahoy footprint, which can make the store appear to be smaller than it is. The window decals help to alleviate this by indicating the true size of the Games Ahoy retail space. Because they are behind the pillars and set back in the development, Ray believed the window signs to be inconsequential, and add to the overall vibrancy and appeal of the otherwise drab shopping center. Beals added additional information gathered during applicant presentation, stating that the additional signage requested would not put them over the total allotment. There is still quite a bit left over. La Mastra commented that the allowable window sign area should thus be calculated based on the entire development, not just this single tenant’s window area. Beals confirms this as accurate. If approved, the applicant’s window signage would not put the development over their allowed sign area. Ray stated that one potential solution would be to remove all of the vinyl decals from the bottom windows, and maintain the vinyl decals on the upper windows, which display popular gaming characters. Ray commented the decals also provide a degree of light control within the business. They cost approximately $4,000, which is not insignificant to a small business such as his. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff thanked the applicant for his presentation, and thanks Beals for gathering the requested information during discussion. Shuff commented that he appreciated the fact that the signs are perforated and act as sunshades as well. However, was a little challenged because if we were to allow the full signage, it may set a soft precedent to allow full coverage signage on windows. The Board needs to be cognizant of that. The applicant’s willingness to remove the bottom portion of the signs, while not achieving a 50% coverage, may get closer to being able to be justified as nominal and inconsequential. Shuff would be in support of removing the lower portions and having most of the upper portions remain. Commission member McCoy agreed with the comments offered by Shuff; McCoy stated he was currently directly across the street from the property in question, and it is difficult to see the window signs from College Ave. Likewise, you don’t notice them much coming from the south. McCoy voiced his support for removing the bottom portion of the signs and maintaining the upper portions. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 11 December 12, 2021 Commission member Meyer also appreciated the willingness of the applicant to remove the bottom portion of the signs and would support that moving forward as a condition of approval. Acting Chair La Mastra agreed, commenting part of the clutter that is visible is produced by the various logos, colors, and graphics in place. All the character signs on top are on a similar white background, which makes a cleaner look. La Mastra would be in support of approving the request with the bottom portions removed. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE ZBA210054 with the conditions that the lower portion of the signs (with gaming logos) be removed, and the upper portions of the signs (with gaming characters) be maintained. Based on these findings, the variance is not detrimental to the public good and therefore the granting of the modification of standard would not diverge from the standard except 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 contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS • OTHER BUSINESS a. Election of Officers for 2022 Commission member Shuff offered the nomination of Shelley La Mastra as Chairperson, citing her adeptness at running our meetings and looking forward to her leadership. McCoy and Meyer agreed. Commission member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to nominate Shelley La Mastra to Board Chairperson for the 2022 year term. Yeas: Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, LA MASTRA WAS VOTED AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THE 2022 YEAR Commission member McCoy offered his opinion that either Meyer or Shuff would be great in the role of Vice Chair. Commission member Meyer made a motion, seconded by La Mastra , to nominate Ian Shuff to Board Vice Chairperson for the 2022 year term. Yeas: Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, LA MASTRA WAS VOTED AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THE 2022 YEAR Beals commented he has not heard from the City Clerk’s office regarding any new applicants to the Board. We are currently still on the search for new applicants. La Mastra and Shuff asked what our minimum for a quorum are; Beals responded that he believed it was three, according to our by -laws but he would need to double-check for accuracy. McCoy commented, referring to La Mastra’s discussion of a return to in-person meetings, that he would support returning to in-person from now on. Shuff shared his support for in-person as well. Meyer is also in support of in-person meetings. Beals responded that he appreciated everyone’s comments on the matter, adding that given the current conditions, a 100% return to in-person may not be possible. We need to figure out if we can staff the hybrid meeting, which takes additional staff resources to run. We will also learn from what Council, P&Z, and other groups are doing moving forward. La Mastra commented she has seen other meetings for neighboring municipalities that broadcast meetings virtually, but any public comment or participation still needed to be done in person. La Mastra asked if any of this was related to the ordinance that was recently passed. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 Land Use Review Commission Page 12 December 12, 2021 Claire Havelda, City Attorney, responded to La Mastra, responded that emergency regulation 79 in still in effect, which is what governs this issue. Havelda stated she would have concerns about due process if we refused to allow people to access the hearings remotely. Given different health concerns and risks, it would seem a bit of overreach to deny that remote access. La Mastra asked Havelda to clarify if that emergency order has a time limit, or ho w it is changed? Havelda responded that Council needs to revisit that order and give consideration to the various groups, policies, and concerns in play. It is not inappropriate for this Board to voice their desire to return to in-person, but we need to be sensitive as well to the needs and desires of the public, staff, and others. La Mastra commented that because 100% of our commission is currently requesting to return to in - person, is it something that when someone submits a request for variance, can th ey be asked if they are agreeable to an in-person meeting, and if there is staffing, can we move forward in that way? Havelda and Shuff both noted that hybrid meetings make public/audience participation a challenge. La Mastra acknowledged the difficulties in making this decision and prosed that perhaps we begin to make a month-by-month determination of how/when best to begin making a return to in-person meetings. Beals explained that initially, when we started remote hearings, we consulted monthly from the Chair. When it became clear that conditions were not changing for significant amount time, we consulted for multiple months at a time. Perhaps we need to return to a more-frequent conversation and/or decision? La Mastra asked that when the question is posed, we also have a note regarding the staffing levels and Claire’s report out on current regulations, etc. Shuff supports a month-to-month check-in moving forward as well. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:33am Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: 24EBEB82-AF1D-4114-9A25-FB3B2BCE3D28 3/7/2022