HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/12/2005FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — May 12, 2005
8:30 a.m.
11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohison I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) I
IChairperson: Dwight Hall IPhone: (H) 224-4029
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 12, 2005, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ron Daggett
Alison Dickson
Robert Donahue
Andy Miscio
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dwight Hall
Dana McBride
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Alison Dickson presiding as chairperson. Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the
April 14, 2005 meeting. Daggett seconded the motion. Miscio abstained. The motion passed.
3. APPEAL NO.2506 — Approved
Address:
124 N Sherwood St
Petitioner:
Mark Knapp
Zone:
NCM
Section:
4.7 (E)(4)
Background.
The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5' to 3.5' in
order to allow a 2-story, 10' by 12' addition on the northeast comer of the house. The north wall of
the addition will line up with the existing north wall of the house. The addition will not be as tall as
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 2
the existing building. This variance was originally heard by the Board on April 14, 2005, but was
tabled until May 12, 2005 in order to allow the applicant to have a property survey completed to
determine the location of the lot line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing kitchen is very small. If the addition were constructed to comply with the 5' setback, it
would only be about 7.5' wide and wouldn't line up with the existing interior walls. Such a kitchen
would not be very functional.
Staff Comments:
A survey of the lot to determine the location of the lot line was completed by the applicant. The
survey shows the lot line to be 3.5' from the existing house instead of the 2.67' that was shown on
the original application made in April.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes commented that the survey had been completed and property pins found the lot line 3.5'
from the existing house, which was different from the previous application showing 2.67'. Berries
remarked that there was a letter in the Board packet in favor of this variance from Karen
McWilliams, Historic Preservation. Barnes presented slides.
Applicant Participation:
Mark Knapp, 118 N Sherwood St, (owner of 124 N Sherwood St) addressed the Board.
Miscio asked the applicant for a clarification of the eave height. Knapp responded that the eave
height will match but the ridge will be approximately 2' shorter than the existing ridge on the house.
Barnes explained that the Code requires a 5' setback and allows a 2' cantilever area to encroach
into that setback. The wall on the cantilever, such as a bay window, only has to be 3' from the lot
line. This could be an equal to or better than standard in that they could build the foundation wall in
line with the required setback and then cantilever the floor 2' beyond the cantilever to within 3' of
the lot line. They could basically do what is proposed with a cantilever, but they would rather bring
the foundation out to be in line with the house.
Miscio asked if the tree would be removed. Knapp replied yes. The fence post that can be seen in
the pictures to the right side of the tree had been placed there after he found pins. They strung a
fine and determined that it was close to the property line. Knapp noted that based on the
assumption that the neighbor's driveway was straight, Knapp measured from the house to the
driveway and then measured from the fence post to the driveway and came up with 2'8". The
actual survey shows the property line, on the left hand side of the picture showing the concrete
track of driveway, to be about V on the concrete to the north.
Miscio asked Knapp if he had talked to his neighbor about this project. Knapp replied, not originally
because the addition was not going any further into Krucky's property, but was just going straight
back and straight up. Knapp stated that he had spoken with his neighbor over the weekend.
Jan Krucky, 128 N Sherwood St, addressed the Board and commented that since the last meeting
he and Knapp have exchanged letters and have had meetings. Krucky understands that Knapp
can build the 2 story addition using the cantilever method without a variance, and now supported
the variance since there is no practical reason to oppose it. They have talked and issues have
been resolved.
Board Discussion:
Miscio remarked that he was in favor of this variance using the equal to or better than standard.
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 3
Donahue had a question regarding the zoning envelope requirements in this zone for setbacks and
height restrictions. Barnes replied that the requirement does apply, but the wall height for this
addition is under that height threshold. It is a normal 5' setback and is outside the 3' envelope so it
does not have to be fire rated. Donahue commented that this variance is better than what it would
have been last month.
Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2506. Granting this variance would not be detrimental to
the public good. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the equal to or
better than standard. Half of what the applicant intends to do, which is the second floor, fits within
the variance. The addition is not an imposition and meets the standard by having the entire side of
the addition built as proposed. Barnes clarified saying that it promotes the purpose of the standard
equally well as a plan that would comply and the plan that would comply is a 2' cantilevered
addition. This is equal to what Knapp could do without a variance. Dickson seconded the motion
with Bames' clarification.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio
Nays: None
4. APPEAL NO. 2510 —Approved
Address 1756 Concord Dr
Petitioner Lloyd Walker & Martha Denney
Zone RL
Section 4.3(D)(2xd)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Constitution Avenue from 15' to
12' in order to allow a 26' x 23' addition to the front of the garage.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioners letter.
Staff Comments:
The Board may find that since only 9 sf of the garage encroaches, the "nominal, inconsequential"
standard may apply.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes referred to the Petitioner's letter explaining the justification for this variance. Most
subdivisions of this age have property lines about 5' behind the back of the sidewalk. This property
line is 7' behind the edge of the sidewalk. The house faces Concord and has a side loading garage
with the driveway coming out on Constitution. Barnes presented slides.
Applicant Participation:
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Dr, addressed the Board. The garage addition will create workspace
out of the existing garage. Walker stated that the geometry of the lot is the issue. Walker
demonstrated the geometry of the footprint of the setback encroachment with a paper sample
displaying the triangular shape of area. The garage doors have to be a minimum of 20' from the
back of the sidewalk. It measures along the sidewalk angles at anywhere between 21'-28'.
Board Discussion:
Miscio commented that he was impressed with the demonstration of the size and angles of the
proposed variance and noted that it was nominal and inconsequential. The Board agreed.
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 4
Donahue remarked that the variance still allows the
intent of the code is met. There is also extra space
setback is mitigated.
minimum of 20' to the garage doors and the
on the street side. The encroachment into the
Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2510 finding the variance was not detrimental to the
public good and based on the nominal and inconsequential standard. The requested variance has
no impact in any detrimental manner and satisfies the intent of the code. The applicant's request is
providing a minimum of 20' for parking in front of the garage. Donahue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio.
Nays: None
5. Appeal NO.2511
— Approved with conditions
Address
818 E Myrtle St
Petitioner
Andrew Cornedi
Zone
NCM
Section
4.7 (D) (1&2)
Background.
A variance is requested for both density/intensity of development and maximum floor area and
footprint for single family dwelling located behind a separate single family dwelling unit in the NCM
district. The first variance is requesting that two single family detached dwellings co -exist on a
9500 sf lot. LUC 4.7 (D) (1) requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sf for the two dwellings. The
second variance requests that the rear dwelling exceed the maximum structure square footage of
1,000 sf. It also requests that the maximum footprint permitted for such dwelling exceed the
maximum required 600 sf. The rear dwelling is 1,776 sf with a footprint of 888 sf.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The rear structure was completed in 2000 and was originally designated as a detached, accessory
garage with loft area on second floor. The applicant was under the impression that shared
correspondence between a former Mayor and himself, as well as discussion with Advance
Planning staff, permitted the applicant to convert the originally permitted garage into a separate
dwelling unit.
Staff Comments:
Normally, a variance request of this nature would be denied by the Board. However, the Board will
need to determine if the correspondence presented by the applicant supports the notion that a
unique situation exists.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes directed the Board to the 3 letters included in their packet. Two letters are from former
Mayor Ann Azad; from 1994 and 1995. The other letter is from the applicant, Andrew Corned!, from
1993.
Barnes explained that the code has changed since 1993. In August 1993 the City issued a building
permit to Comedi to build a new 24' x 37' detached garage with a loft area in the NCM zone. The
NCM zone at that time did not restrict the size of detached accessory buildings. These accessory
buildings are now regulated as well as houses located at the rear of lots in the NCL, NCM, and
NCB zones. At the time the garage permit was issued in 1993, none of those regulations were in
place and the size of the garage complied with the requirements. In March of 1994 a permit was
issued to Cornedi for a half bath in the existing garage. There is nothing in the code to prohibit a
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 5
bathroom in a detached garage. Those are the only 2 permits that the City has on record for this
structure.
On December 21, 1993 City Council adopted an emergency ordinance to amend the lot area
requirement in the NCM zoning district. Prior to the emergency ordinance, the minimum lot size for
a single family dwelling was 4,500 sf, which meant that if someone had at least a 9,000 sf lot, they
could have 2 houses on that lot. In the early 90's there was concern about some of the alley
houses being constructed; duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes, large buildings, alley houses, etc.
Neighbors complained. City Council adopted the emergency ordinance to increase the minimum lot
size from 4,500 sf to 5,500 sf, which would require a lot size of 11,000 sf to have 2 dwelling units
on the same lot.
Cornedi wrote a letter to Mayor Ann Azari on December 24, 1993 explaining his long range plans
to convert his garage into a dwelling unit and his concerns with this garage under construction.
Mayor Azad responded with a letter on January 10, 1994 reassuring the applicant that the
information given to him by City Council and by Ken Waldo from Advanced Planning was still
accurate as long as the plans remain to convert the use in 5 to 8 years from the date of the letter.
The emergency ordinance has an additional provision which states that the new minimum lot size
would only be in effect until December 31, 1994 or until new NCM zone design guidelines are
adopted by City Council. Future plans would only be subject to the design guidelines as long as the
proposed change of use meets other restrictions currently in the City code and no additional
amendments are made to the code in the intervening time period.
The emergency ordinance got extended until 1996. There was extensive public outreach;
neighborhood meetings, open houses, public forums, Planning & Zoning Board hearings. The
public showed up at the City Council meetings in 1994 and the design guidelines were tabled.
When the actual ordinance was adopted in 1996, the lot size was at 5,000 sf and did not revert to
4,500 sf. From December 1993 until currently today, a new detached dwelling on the back of this
lot or conversion of an existing detached accessory building would not have complied with the
required codes.
Building & Zoning was not aware that this structure had been converted until a tenant in the front
building had a dispute with the tenant in the back building over newspaper deliveries. Comedi was
then notified that the garage had been converted without a building permit. Also, there were
problems with the lot size and the size of building itself. Some of the 1996 guidelines have become
standards. One of the regulations places a limit on the size of accessory buildings to 800 sf. This
garage is larger than 800 sf, but the permit was issued before that regulation was in effect. Last
year City Council adopted a moratorium on carriage houses to a 600 sf building footprint and a
1,000 sf maximum. Last June the regulations were made even more restrictive.
In order to issue a building permit and a certificate of occupancy to legalize this dwelling unit,
variances are needed. If the variances are approved, Cornedi will need to obtain a building permit
and a certificate of occupancy; paying all the capital expansion, impact, and building permit fees.
Miscio asked what the consequences would be if the variances were not approved. Barnes
responded that the rear building would have to be converted back to a detached accessory
building. At the time the garage was built, there were no building size restrictions. Today a 600 sf
area footprint and 1,000 sf total area is allowed. This building has a footprint of 24' x 37' and a total
of 1,776 sf. The issues we have are with footprint exceeding 600 sf; the total size of the building is
over 1,000 sf; and the lot size not being 10,000 sf.
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 6
Eckman stated that if this structure converts back to a garage, that these maximum sizes would not
apply since the garage permit was issued before these regulations were in effect. Barnes agreed.
Miscio asked for a clarification on lofts. Barnes commented that under the current code, the square
footage of the loft area is calculated as part of the total area allowed in the 1,000 sf maximum
building. Loft areas may be used for storage, billiards' room, bathroom, etc., but they can not have
a dwelling unit then;.
Dickson remarked that the issue is the use of the building and asked how use was monitored.
Barnes responded that for 5-6 years the City was not aware that this building was being used as a
dwelling unit. It was converted without permits, and as far as the City knew, it was still a detached
garage building with a loft area and a half bath. Barnes noted that the Board will decide whether or
not the variances should be approved. By approving the variances, the building can continue to be
used as a residential unit. If the variances are denied, then that use would have to cease.
Barnes mentioned that Zoning had received a letter from Vic Day stating that the neighborhood
had accepted this property as having 2 dwelling units. But after discussion with other neighbors,
they would not like to see any additional increase in occupancy, additional living units or bedrooms
on this property allowed.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal.
Miscio noted that he knew the applicant and the property, but had no personal interest towards this
variance. Miscio asked if he was disqualified from this appeal. Eckman stated that Miscio would not
be disqualified by seeing the property. Eckman added that disqualification was determined by how
well he knew the applicant and whether Miscio could remain unbiased. Miscio replied yes he could
be unbiased regarding the applicant.
Applicant Participation:
David Herrera, attorney representing Andrew Comedi, addressed the Board. Herrera stated that
the application for variance appeal has 3 parts to it. The first part is with the minimum lot size being
under the 10,000 sf requirement for 2 residential uses in the NCM zone. The second part is
regarding the footprint for the property. The code was adopted subsequent to the construction of
the building, and that does not allow a building footprint in excess of 600 sf.
Herrera stated that the 600 sf footprint for the building, as Barnes has indicated, would be
permitted if the structure reverted to an accessory building, even though the current code for an
accessory building would not allow 888 sf use. This particular building was constructed according
to the area and size defined in the original building permit as 888 sf. It is true that the original
building permit identified this property to be a residential garage. Herrera understands that there
was never a certificate of occupancy issued by the City. Herrera noted that Barnes conceded that
because there was a permit issued for a residential garage that was a grandfathered use, and with
establishing that that the 888 sf footprint cannot be changed. The foundation and framing for this
building were completed around September of 1993, and there have been no substantial
modifications to that structure since the original permit was issued.
In November of 1993, in response to a letter from Mr Waido, of Advanced Planning, Comedi
contacted Waido with his intents for using the property for residential use. Comedi also explained
that he was doing the work himself and that it was going to take some time. Waido informed
Comedi of potential changes in the Land Use Code with regards to the minimum lot size from
9,500 sf to 11,000 sf on a temporary basis. Waido remarked that this particular use would be
grandfathered.
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 7
Comedi went to the City Council meeting on December 14, 1993 and addressed the Council about
the proposed change. The Council member indicated that this session did not apply and his
concerns were not at issue.
Then on December 21, 1993 the City Council changed the code. On December 24, 1993, Comedi
wrote a letter to the Mayor and City Council concerning the emergency ordinance just passed.
Comedi received a letter from Mayor Azari, dated January 10, 1994 stating the information he had
received was still accurate as long as his plans to convert the use was within 5 to 8 years. The
letter noted that the new minimum lot size of 5,500 sf would only be in effect until December 31,
1994 or until new guidelines for the new NCM zone were adopted. Comedi's future plans should
only be subject to the design guidelines; as long as the proposed change of use met other
restrictions currently in the City code and no additional amendments were made to the Code within
the intervening time period. The design guidelines should not affect his plans unless he decided to
make exterior alterations to the structure at the time he applies for a change of use. Herrera noted
that the language from the Mayor was somewhat problematic.
Herrera stated that there was a mistake in the permit dated March 23, 1994 to add a half bath in
the garage. The category type listed on this permit identified the property as a two family dwelling
instead of residential garage like the original permit from August 10, 1993. Comedi understood this
to be two dwellings on this property.
Herrera referred to another letter from Mayor Azad, which stated that Comedi would still have the
ability to convert the loft in the garage to a residential unit once the minimum lot size in the NCM
reverted back to 4,500 sf. Azari noted that the Council had extended the emergency ordinance
time frame to March 1, 1996 and that is was expected that the design guidelines would revert back
to 4,500 sf at that date. Herrera commented that by this time the construction on the exterior of the
garage was complete. Unfortunately, the Code never did convert back to 4,500 sf.
The inside of the garage loft was finished and occupied around June 2000. The building has been
in place since 1993 and work has progressed. Comedi believed the correspondence from the City
was sufficient as long as the construction was finished within 5 to 8 years.
Herrera referred to the standards used to grant variances. The first reason to grant this variance is
under the hardship standard. Comedi has invested his finances in this property and relies on the
income generated from this property for building management expenses. This property is not
detrimental to the neighborhood. There are unusual circumstances relating to City transitions and
restrictions. The hardship was not caused by the applicant. Comedi did receive 2 permits, and
worked as best as he could to comply with existing Code at that time. Comedi was not aware that
he was not compliant of the change of use requirements. Herrera pointed to 2.10.2 H1 and noted
exceptional circumstances of hardship.
The third portion of the appeal is unconventional in that they believe there is a pre-existing
nonconforming use. Today the use is believed to be nominal and inconsequential, since the
neighborhood is used to the property use as a rental unit. Vic Day's letter affirms that thought. It
does not change the character of the neighborhood. Herrera noted that the square footage
footprint size may not be inconsequential but fits the context of the neighborhood. There were
honest mistakes from both the City and Comedi. This variance could be allowed under this nominal
and inconsequential standard.
Herrera remarked that this appeal also fits the equal to or better than standard. The tiny primary
residence in the front of the lot is only 640 sf, and is not overwhelming. The problem is with the
code changing after construction had begun in 1993 and the residential use that has been in effect
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 8
since 2000. Under the context of the neighborhood, the use is reasonable and not a consequential
impact on the neighborhood. There is also the communication between Comedi and high ranking
City officials.
Dickson asked Barnes for an explanation of certificate of occupancy. Barnes stated that the City
issues a letter of completion for garage permits. A certificate of occupancy is issued for new
principal buildings. Barnes noted that 2 permits for this property had been issued; one for a new
detached garage and the other for a half bath in the garage. In order to convert a detached
accessory building into a residential dwelling, a certificate of occupancy would need to be issued. A
permit was not applied for a change of use to convert the garage to a dwelling unit. There was not
a permit for the kitchen. Barnes suggested asking the applicant why he went beyond the
description listed on the issued permits.
Herrera noted that his understanding was that Comedi was under the impression that the permit
issued with the category of two family dwelling was sufficient for the change of use. The permit to
add a half bath did not address the kitchen alteration. But Comedi thought the correspondence
with the Mayor concerning his intentions to make the garage as dwelling unit was adequate. There
was some confusion.
Barnes stated that he understood that Comedi was confused by this process, but noted there was
not any misunderstanding on the City's part. The fees to convert an accessory building to a
dwelling unit are $10,000415000. The original garage permit had fees of $304.88. The permit to
finish the half bath was $73.88. There were no water or new construction fees accessed.
Herrera observed that the applicant now realized the City had a different perception and was now
asking for a variance because of a hardship and since the garage had been occupied since 2000.
Donahue asked Barnes how many permits were issued on intentions by the City. Barnes replied,
none. Their intentions are not permits. if they apply for a permit for a garage, they get a permit for a
garage. If they apply for a permit and get their first inspection within 6 months their permit is
extended as long as they keep working on the project and keep getting inspections.
Daggett remarked that the category type of the half bath permit does say that it is a two family
dwelling. Barnes noted that this was an error by the person entering the data and that the
information entered is from the applicant's application. The permit issued August 10, 1993 was for
a new 24' x 37' detached garage with a category type of residential garage. The March 23, 1994
permit description of the work to be performed stated that was "to finish a half bath in existing
garage." The permit was to finish a half bath and there was no way that this garage had become a
duplex in between August 1993 and March 1994. There were no inspections done, even though
letters had been exchanged.
Miscio inquired of the Board's responsibility to make a legal basis decision. Barnes stated that the
Board was to decide whether this appeal is detrimental to the public good and as indicated
previously this property has been accepted by the neighborhood as a dwelling unit. The size of the
lot needs a variance. Miscio stated that there are unique circumstances regarding the letters
exchanged with high ranking City officials reassuring Comedi that the lot size was not going to be
an issue. In the context of the neighborhood, this variance may have nominal and inconsequential
affect, since the garage has been rented since 2000. The hardship aspect is the correspondence
between the applicant and the City.
Herrera stated that he was not there to present a legal argument. He was there to get zoning
variances.
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 9
Barnes noted that he had no knowledge of his change of use until these letters were recently
presented to him. Barnes mentioned that the letters referred to lot size reverted back to 4,500 sf,
which did not happen.
Board Discussion:
Miscio commented that he believed that the City had led the applicant to believe what he was
doing was legal. Miscio could see a possible hardship situation, but was tom because of the way
the applicant may have been trying to interpret the letters to fit his personal agenda. Miscio would
like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt since he did have the letters.
Miscio asked what the consequences would be if the variances were not approved. Barnes stated
the kitchen would have to be removed and that no one could reside there. If the variance is
approved there would have to be a condition that a permit to change the use of the garage to a
dwelling unit would have to be obtained within 60 days; a certificate of occupancy within 90 days,
and fees would have to be paid.
Donahue shared his concerns with this dwelling benefiting from services such as water,
wastewater and streets at no cost. Dickson agreed with both Donahue and Miscio, but noted that
ignorance was not a reason for granting a variance. Dickson also commented that there was no
permit for a kitchen, even though there was an error on the category type. Daggett remarked that
he was in favor of granting this variance because of the letters from the officials.
Dickson noted that based on the miscommunications, she agreed with Barnes that a permit and
CO should be obtained and all development and conversion fees should be paid. Dickson also
mentioned safety recommendations.
Barnes stated that when an application for a building permit is submitted that a Plans Analyst goes
over the plans and analyzes construction methods, floor loads, windows, mechanical equipment,
etc. After the permit is issued the work can be inspected.
Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2511 for the following reasons. Granting the variance is
not detrimental to the public good. There is an unusual hardship of miscommunication that has
occurred with City officials and the applicant. The applicant was led to believe that he could have a
dwelling unit in the future and did obtain a permit, even though it was not for residential use. There
has been no negative concern from the neighbors as it has been there for a number of years. A
condition the Board would like to see is that a permit be obtained in 60 days to convert the garage
to residential use, with a certificate of occupancy obtained in 90 days. All applicable fees are to be
paid by the applicant. Donahue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, and Miscio.
Nays: None
6. Appeal NO. 2512 — Withdrawn by Applicant.
Appeal NO. 2513 — Approved.
Address 2121 E. Harmony Rd
Petitioner Luke Oldenberg of BHA Design
Zone 3.8.7(G)(6)
Section HC
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 10
Background:
The variance would increase the number of allowed ground signs at the Timberwood entrance
from 1 to 3 in order to allow 2 new directional signs to be placed on either side of the existing
ground sign. The letters on one sign would also allow the size of the existing parking lot directional
sign at the Harmony Road entrance to be increased from 10 sf to 17.58 sf. Lastly, the variance
would allow 4 sculptural entry columns along Snow Mesa to include a 2.25 sf logo on each entry
column.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments:
This is similar to the variance request that was made and approved on 09-09-1999 in that the main
reason for providing the proposed signage is for directional purposes. Given the size of the
campus -like development, it is important to direct customers to the appropriate building in the most
efficient manner. Therefore, numerous directional signs are needed, and some of them are
proposed to be larger than the normal 4 sf size used for directional signage. The previous variance
was granted using the hardship standard since that was the only standard available for the Board
to use at that time. The finding was that the nature of the facility (medical) and the campus layout
created a unique situation with unique needs.
Staff Presentation:
Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. Snow Mesa Dr is still under construction. The entry
columns, since they will have a logo, are considered signs, not sculptural works of art. The
applicants want the columns at the Snow Mesa new entrance to match the entrance on Harmony
Rd.
Applicant Participation:
Bruce Hendee and Luke Oldenberg, BHA Design, Inc., addressed the Board. Hendee gave the first
presentation. The hospital originally purchased the land 15 years ago and the land has been held
in reserve for the future campus being built. Today the construction is active and will probably be
15-20 years before completion. The overall campus master plan was presented. The plan was
originally prepared in the anticipation of approximately a million square feet of ultimate hospital
facilities. This is not a traditional inpatient campus. It is more of an outpatient campus and has
more visitors with day surgeries and physician group visits. There is a more rapid turnover of
people on a daily basis.
The campus plan started about 7 years ago with 2 models to work with: the first to work with a
traditional plan that met the City Plan, which today is called the Land Use Code and works with
more of a grid system of streets; or it could be developed as a campus, more like the Hewlett
Packard campus on Harmony Rd. The campus setting differs from the city grid system in that it
anticipates a perimeter drive system, which is shown on the master plan. It has a central area
which is a campus green for people to be able to walk between various buildings. This is a fairly
common master plan concept for multiple buildings for corporations and medical facilities. The
campus plan model was adopted and they moved forward.
The campus plan is good and adds value because it segregates vehicles from pedestrians. By
putting a loop road on the outside of the campus, way -finding happens on the outside. People can
park and then if they have to go from building to building, they can do that without having to cross
intervening driveways. This is important with older patients, to avoid conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians.
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 11
The primary care plaza being built now is just a little different. In meeting the City's connectivity
requirements, a hybrid plan was developed. The planning staff in the City Transportation group
wanted to make sure that Snow Mesa connected through north to south. Prior to this road being
completed as it exists today, the elementary school there has only one good point of egress. The
Transportation Dept. asked that an additional road be provided for egress purposes for other
areas, not necessarily the medical campus. This area will have outpatient and more daily visits to
primary care physicians.
The east area campus does not have as significant connecting points. The east and west campus
will have larger facilities with more intensive kind of medical operations.
One of the goals for the campus was to make an effective sign system for users to make decisions
quickly and without creating congestion or dangerous conditions. The master plan enables people
to drive around the perimeter and be able to quickly see an address and access that building.
Different addressing systems were considered; animals, symbols, numbers, letters, etc. A
numbering system was chosen. When people arrive at the campus they need to make a quick
decision as to the direction that they are going to turn. The artistic icons help to identify the
boundaries of the overall campus.
Luke Oldenberg, BHA Design, stated that he has been working with PVH and Hendee to get the
sign system designed and to get the variances needed. The signage system for the entire campus
proposed is a simple addressing system to enable patients to navigate around the campus. Other
systems evaluated created even more signs and were even more confusing.
The first variance that Oldenberg wanted to go over was the sign on Timberwood Dr. Oldenberg
shared a visual simulation with the additional proposed signage added. A visitor entering on
Timberwood has a very short distance of approximately 100' to make a decision on which way to
go. To the right Timberwood continues and will go around and eventually connect with Snow Mesa
Dr in the future. To the left is a private drive that circles around the north end of the campus and
crosses Snow Mesa and continues to the east. This private drive can not have buildings addressed
to it due to different fire code regulations. The existing buildings are addressed to Harmony Rd as
well as some of the future buildings. Some of the future buildings will have a Snow Mesa Dr
address.
The addressing system does not work in every case, so they have proposed some directional
signage to help people navigate through the campus. They would like 2 directional signs on the
Timberwood entrance; one pointing to Urgent Care and the addresses on Harmony Rd, guiding the
patient to the left. Even though there is a street sign there, they want to re -enforce the Timberwood
addresses to the right. They originally considering putting the numbering on a freestanding existing
ground sign, which would not require a variance, but legibility would be difficult. It is important that
elderly people be able to see addressing easily without stopping or causing traffic delays. The text
on the sign would be small enough not to require a variance, but the sign code requires them to
consider the whole wall as the sign.
The second variance requested is for an increase in size for a directional sign along Harmony Rd.
This situation is similar to the sign on Timberwood Dr. The patient entering the campus from
Harmony Rd has very little time to make a decision as to which direction to go. There is not very
much space between Harmony Rd and the private drive access. They also want to re -enforce the
direction to the Urgent Care facility.
They have done research on the speed of cars and the legibility and size of lettering on signage.
They printed and tested letters outside to find out how big the text needed to be. They determined
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 12
the best text size would be 4.5" for directional information and 6" for Urgent Care. They have
reviewed all of signage system and think this plan fits the campus the best.
The third variance being applied for is to allow 4 more entry column sculptural signs for the Snow
Mesa Dr entrance off Harmony Rd. At the full build out of the campus, it is envisioned that this will
be the main entrance to the campus. They want slightly more elaborate signage here than what
exists at the Timberwood and Harmony entrances. They are proposing wing walls, not considered
signs, and another project identification sign that is nearly identical to the sign on Timberwood.
This is within the sign code and does not require a variance. There are 2 entry column signs on
each side of the road connecting to the little wing walls being framed with low ornamental trees.
Sculptural column signs have already been approved on the existing campus, with 2 signs at the
entrance on Timberline and 2 signs on Harmony. They want to continue with the same design and
theme for the campus.
Hendee made closing comments and stated that way -finding is a challenge in large campuses.
They have worked with large clients, including The Ranch and HP. With adding the complication of
medical clientele with visual impairment or reduced legibility abilities, way -finding becomes much
more important.
The signs variances requested are specifically to allow patients to make decisions quicker, be able
to see the signs earlier, and not create traffic difficulties. The column markers help to identify the
campus itself so that people know they are in the right location.
Dickson inquired on the letter height proposed for the signs of the first variance request at
Timberwood. The applicant replied that the directional sign would have 4.5" letters and the Urgent
Care letters would be 6".
Dickson asked what was the original letter height for the directional sign of the second request.
The applicant replied 2.5".
Donahue questioned the distance off Harmony for the second requested sign variance. The
applicant replied approximately 100'.
Dickson wanted to know if the sidewalk would have to be reconfigured to accommodate the wider
directional sign. The applicant replied that the sign fits as designed without any alterations to the
street or sidewalk.
Miscio remarked that the signs gave him mixed messages and he found the arrows confusing.
Miscio wanted to know why there were addresses mixed with building names and if Urgent Care
was at one of the addresses listed. The applicant replied that yes, Urgent Care is 2127 E. Harmony
Rd, and according to the sign you would go left. But, it is quickest at this entrance to get to Urgent
Care by going straight. Urgent Care is the only use on the whole campus that will be signed
separately, because of emergency situations.
Board Discussion:
Miscio commented that he was a big fan of directional signs. A logo is even more helpful to identify
the structure. Miscio noted that it is appropriate to have more directional signs than customary for
elderly people going to hospital or medical facilities.
Dickson agreed with the campus plan and acknowledged them being hindered by the City Plan.
Dickson remarked that she was in favor of the first variance request and noted that it was very well
done. The walls give continuity and she did see them as sign structures. The third item really gives
a sense of continuity at all the entries with the columns. Dickson expressed a slight concern with
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 13
the second variance request, and was not sure the size of the letters was necessary. There is an
Urgent Care sign on the walls on the north entry of the building and that cars will come to a stop at
that intersection to read the sign anyway.
Donahue stated that he had no problem with the first and third variance request. He saw the sign
as the lettering for the first request and it fell within the 4 sf allowed. Dickson & Miscio agreed. The
walls do help it tie into the existing brick structure coming off Timberwood. Donahue had no issues
with the small sculptural logos of the third request, and found them inconsequential.
Donahue shared a concern with the second request for a variance. It is 100' off of Harmony.
Dickson stated that the cars have already agreed to turn in before they see the sign. There is an
Urgent Care sign near the top of the building just to the left of the big ornamental structure that can
be read from Harmony Rd.
Hendee stated that the second variance request was the most important to them from a directional
and way -finding stand point. Hendee shared a concern with the road on the south side having the
volumes necessary to be a connector street. Their biggest concern is to not impede traffic flow.
They do not want to have traffic backed up on Harmony Rd while someone is sitting there trying to
find their way. They want letters large enough that they can be read immediately so someone can
make a decision quickly.
Barnes further explained the through motion in that there is a stop sign on the private drive but
there is not a stop sign as you come in on the drive to Harmony.
Donahue agreed with the legibility standpoint and noted that when you are halfway in that the
current sign is illegible and can not be read. The proposed signage is easier to see. Miscio liked
that the signage minimizes confusion and gives direction. Not having these signs may cause more
problems than having them. Miscio commented that the elderly would appreciate the larger
lettering of the signs. Dickson stated that it is the size of these signs that is question.
The Board discussed whether these signs would fall under the equal to or better than or hardship
standard. Barnes stated that in 1999 all the Board had to use was the hardship standard. It was a
hardship in that there was a unique situation of the size and layout of this large campus
environment needing directional signs. Barnes did not see where the equal to or better than
standard would apply. This is a unique situation. The intent of limiting directional signs to 4 sf is
because that is big enough to get the job done normally and not large enough to add clutter to the
streetscape. It keeps coming back to this being an unusual situation.
Donahue commented that he saw the variances using different standards. The first request is
equal to or better than because of the size of the lettering being very small and blending in with the
brick of existing sign. The third request would be nominal and inconsequential because the size of
the logo is very small. The middle request would be a hardship. Dickson asked if this was allowed.
Barnes replied yes, but this would be the first time.
Donahue made a motion to approve Appeal 2513 finding that granting these 3 requested variances
would not be detrimental to the public good. The first variance request for 2 additional directional
signs on Timberwood entrance to the campus would be equal to or better than a proposal that
would comply with the code. The letters are small and the area of the actual signage of the letters
would actually be within the 4 sf allowed and would be equal to or better than situation. The
proposal is to allow the wall sign to blend in with the existing brick on the Harmony Campus sign.
The second variance request for the additional area of sign on the Harmony entrance is found to
be a hardship in that this is a large development campus needing traffic directional signs for
ZBA May 12, 2005 - Page 14
visitors to find their way. This is not a typical commercial development. There are distances from
streets to getting to the buildings and that there is a hardship of need of directing traffic.
The third request for additional monument sculptures on the Harmony entrance is found to be
nominal and inconsequential in that it is basically an art sculpture helping to designate an entrance
and is part of the landscaping features. The small logo is nominal and inconsequential in the
scheme of the whole development.
Dickson seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio
Nays: None
8. Other Business.
Barnes commented that Steve Remington had resigned from the Board. Barnes talked to the City
Clerk's office about the vacancy before the meeting. They will turn in the applications that they
have. They are advertising for six Board positions. The Council will make a determination on
whether they want to close the application process or continue it. It is unknown when Remington's
vacancy will be filled.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Dwight Hall, Chai p son
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator