Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/10/1986ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 10, 1986 Regular Meeting - 81,30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 10, 1986 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Leis, and Lawton. Boardmembers Absent (excused): Dodder, Walker Staff Present: Barnes, Roy, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 13, 1986, Approved as Published The minutes of the March 13, 1986 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1722. Section 118-97 (D), by Ray Dixon, owner, 140 - 148 W. Oak and 151 S. College - Approved with conditions. "---The variance would allow portable signs to be located in porticos (vestibule -type entrances) in buildings located in Oak Street Place. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The buildings in question are malls containing a number of tenants. Many of these tenants have interior locations which don't have street exposure. These porticos are the only private property available for these tenants to advertise on. In order for the various tenants to have equal time, the most desirable type of sign is a portable easel sign. Signs on the building for these multi -tenant buildings are not too effective because this downtown area is more pedestrian oriented than other shopping areas in town, and people walking next to the building generally can't see signs which are flush against the building, 15 feet overhead. In addition, the trees planted in the sidewalk downtown, along with the canopies at the street corners and the cars parked in front of the buildings, tend to obscure wall signs. Since buildings downtown don't have much, if any, private property between the street and the building on which to erect a permanent freestanding sign close to the street, they are at a disadvantage under the sign code when it comes to advertising options which are available to other merchants in other parts of town such as South College Avenue. Allowing these portable signs in recessed entries would help offset this disadvantage. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with certain conditions, such as: 1. Limiting the signs to easel -type signs. 2. Limitng the size of the signs. ZBA Minutes, Apri#986 Page 2 C , J 3. Possibly securing them to the building in some manner (i.e. a chain), to prevent them from being knocked over into the public right-of-way. 4. Limiting the location of the signs to private property. Although the Board will probably be concerned with setting a precedent, there are a number of good hardships mentioned which are peculiar to this property which would not apply to other properties in other parts of the City." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that portable signs were illegal under the Sign Code and were difficult to control. Chapter 95 of the City Code also prohibits the use of portable signs on the public right-of-way, so if the variance was granted it would need to be with the condition that the portable signs be placed on private property only. The only private property visible from the outside of the building would be the three porticos in question. Petitioner Ray Dixon spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the signs were not aesthetically displeasing and not harmful to anyone; furthermore they were very beneficial for foot traffic. He stated that the problem was peculiar to several of the larger buildings in the old downtown area - the square footage was so large that they had to be subdivided into smaller shops, resulting in businesses with no street frontage. Oak Street Place has about 57 tenants so it would be impossible to give the shops in the interior any exposure to oustide foot traffic without a variance. Mr. Dixon stated that he would like to have several portable signs available in each portico to be used on a rotating basis to advertise the businesses inside and to advertise special events such as Mothers- Day and special sales. Boardmember Lieser asked how large the signs would be. Mr. Barnes stated that they were about 2 x 3 foot in size. Boardmember Lieser asked how many signs would be used. Mr. Dixon stated that he would like to have no more than 2 sign per portico. Boardmember Thede asked if the tenants were aware of the lack of signage when they leased the spaces. Mr. Dixon replied, yes - and no - that they were aware of the problem, but had intended to ask for a variance to allow portable signs in the porticos. Boardmember Thede stated that perhaps the wall space in the porticos could be used. Mr. Barnes stated that most of the wall area inside the porticos was glass. Boardmember Thede asked if signs could be painted on the glass. Mr. Barnes stated that temporary paintings such as those done in restaurant windows could be done, but were not particularly attractive, and that permanent lettering would not allow for rotation between businesses. Mr. Dixon stated that he would like to be allowed to use the portable signs and not use up all the sign allowance. Mr. Barnes stated that the portable signs, if allowed, should be included in the total sign allowance, and that the properties in question had about 10 square feet of unused sign allowance. Mr. Barnes stated that the portable signs which had been used in the Oak Street malls were tasteful. Mr. Barnes stated further that other businesses in town had space for freestanding signs and window space to display merchandise for advertisement. ZBA Minutes, Apri0986 • Page 3 Mall businesses on the south end of of town had room inside along the walkways for advertisement, as well as large window spaces. The DDA did a survey that showed that Oak Street Plaza has the highest pedestrian traffic of downtown. However, the canopy obscures the wall signs from pedestrian traffic. There are some hardships unique to this area that put these merchants at a disadvantage. Boardmember Leis asked Mr. Dixon if he had considered anything other than easel -type signs. Mr. Leis expressed his concern that easel signs were unsafe - possibly blocking the entrance way in the event of fire. Mr. Leis suggested that signs mounted on a pole and set in cement would be safer. Boardmember Leis also wanted to know just how portable the signs would be - if they would be brought inside every day and if they would be used every day. Mr. Leis felt that such signs could be considered permenent in the sense that they would be used every day. Boardmember Thede stated the shops were difficult to find even when you knew what you were looking for. She felt that a store directory would be appropriate. Mr. Dixon replied that one entrance did have a directory but it was for the mezzanine area. However, there was still the problem of gaining exposure for businesses in the interior of the malls. Boardmember Lieser stated that she would like to address the precedent issue. She asked if these were the only two mall -type situations in the downtown area. Mr. Dixon replied yes. Boardmember Thede stated that she was also concerned with the precedent issue. Mr. Dixon replied that he would like to see a broader interpretation of the portable sign issue - but would confine the discussion to the specific variance request at present. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that there was one other mall - Old Town Square - in the downtown area, but it was a different situation. Each store had frontage and window space along the walkway, and there were few porticos to deal with. Also, any request for portable signs in Old Town would be reviewed by two boards - the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Landmark Preservation Committee. Each area is different and should be judged on case by case basis. Boardmember Lawton asked if the portable signs in Old Town were legal. He also wanted to know if it would be feasible to hang signs under the canopy. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the portable signs in Old Town were illegal, and that suspending signs under the canopy would be allowable if they did not exceed the building's sign allowance. Boardmember Leis asked if there would be any in-house control of the signs. There could be problems with 57 tenants competing for sign space. Mr. Dixon stated that his tenants had always exercised good taste in using the portable signs in the past. Boardmember Leis also asked if the portable signs would still be within the allowed sign allowance. Mr. Barnes stated that the signs were small, and would not exceed the 10 square feet remaining sign allowance. Boardmember Leis stated that he was primarily concerned that the exit width be maintained and the signs not block the exit in the event of a fire. ZBA Minutes, Apri&86 • Page 4 Mr. Dixon replied that he shared Mr. Leis's concern, and would be willing to deal with the problem. Boardmember Thede reiterated that the tenants leased the spaces knowing that there was no street frontage. Mr. Dixon asked Ms. Thede why she wanted to penalize small businesses for leasing space in the older downtown area. Mr. Dixon stated that he was trying to improve the downtown and increase the tax base. Boardmember Thede stated that she was concerned about establising a precedent. City Attorney Roy addressed the precedent issue, stating that in reviewing such cases, the standards need to be sufficiently defined and consistently applied. However, different circumstances to which the standards are applied could render a different outcome. Mr. Dave Roy, of the Fortown Association, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he was in favor of the variance and that he urged the Board to consider looking at the larger issue of the whole downtown area. Mr. Roy read a letter written by Carey Hewitt, President of the Fortown Association and owner of the Cupboard, 152 S.College Ave., stating his support of the variance. Boardmember Lieser stated that the Board would not be considering the larger issue at present time, but would restrict its discussion to the requested variance. Stephanie Hayward, of the House of Smoke Delicatessan, Oak Street Place, spoke in favor of the appeal stating during the Easter Walk-a-thon promotion, many partcipants expressed surprise at the number of businesses inside the mall because the signs outside the building did not adequately advertise the variety of businesses inside. She also described a portable sign that the Smokehouse Deli used to announce the daily special, stating that it was put out by 10:00 a.m. and brought in by 3:00 p.m. She urged the Board to grant the variance. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Leis stated that although he was not in favor of handicapping small businesses downtown, he was not totally convinced that easel -type signs were the way to go. Mr. Leis stated further, that as a consumer, he was tired of being bombarded with sale signs. He stated that he was in favor of limiting the type and size of the sign, and would like to add the condition that the exit width be maintained. Boardmember Thede stated that she felt the arguments all got back to ecomonic issues, which were not to be considered a hardship. Boardmember Johnson stated that there was a legitimate hardship, that it was a multi -tenant building with no street frontage for the majority of tenants. He also stated that he was in favor of the variance but would like to limit the signs to no more that two per portico. Mr. Johnson also expressed his concern over the precedent issue, and stated that the Board should be very careful in defining the hardship in granting the variance. ZBA Minutes, April-1986 • Page 5 City Attorney Roy stated that the Board needed to state specific findings as to the hardship that warranted the variance for future reference in the precedent issue. Appropriate findings could include the size, location and configuration of the building, the number of tenants, the lack of street frontage. Boardmember Lieser stated that she thought that approving the variance on a trial basis, such as one year, would be appropriate and would give the Board opportunity to review the situation should any problems arise. Boardmember Lawton stated that the hardship was the fact that there were three entrances and 57 tenants, but he did not think that the portable signs would be the overall answer to their advertising probelms. He also questioned who would control the sign rotation and the appearance of the signs. Boardmember Lawton stated that his main concern was safety, and that the trial period was a good idea. Zoning Administrator Barnes asked that the findings of hardship be stated specifically before a motion was made. The Board stated the findings of hardship to be the number of tenants, the size of the buiding, the lack of street frontage for the majority of the tenants, and the lack of visibility of the existing signs for pedestrian traffic. Boardmember Leis made a motion to approve the variance with the conditions that: 1) the signs be limited to easel -type or portable kiosk type signs, 2) the size be limited to no larger than 2'x3', 3) there be a maximum of 2 signs per vestibule, 4) the signs be secured to the building in some manner to prevent the signs from falling into the public right-of-way, 5) the signs be located on private property only, 6) the exit width be maintained, and 7) the variance be granted on a one year trial basis only. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Leis, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1723. 3036 E. Drake - Withdrawn Appeal No. 1724. Section 118-95 (D), by Ricki Slack for the Farmers' Market, 3500 S. College Avenue - Approved. "---The variance would allow two freestanding signs to be located on one street for one property instead of the one sign allowed by Code. Specifically, the variance would allow the "Farmers' Market" sign to be installed on the College Avenue frontage along with the "Foothills Square" sign from May 1 to October 1 every year. The Board granted this variance last year for the sign to be up from July 1 to October 1 every year. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The Farmers' Market is an outdoor market conducted on Wednesdays. They feel it is necessary to have a sign up every day so that people know it is a weekly event and can make plans to stop by. A sign on the property is the best way to advertise. To enhance the growers' market it is desirable to start on May 1 instead of July I in order to sell bedding plants and earlier crops which otherwise would not be available. ZBA Minutes, April-1986 Page 6 ---Staff recommendation: None." One notice was returned; two letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the same variance was granted last year for the sign to go up July 1 to October 1, and this request was to put the sign up earlier, on May 1. Petitioner Ricki Slack, representing the Wednesday Farmers' Market, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the growers needed to begin selling in May in order to sell their bedding plants and early crops such as lettuce, peas, 6 cherries. She stated further that a survey of those attending the market last year indicated that the sign was the most effective means of advertising. Boardmember Lieser asked how the Farmers' Market was different from a retail nursery if they were selling bedding plants, and what would keep the market from becoming a full-time business. Ms. Slack stated that the Farmers' Market only sold on Wednesdays, and they had no intention of expanding business at that site. Ms. Slack stated further that the Farmers' Market was not charged rent for the use of the lot, but was allowed use of the lot in exchange for bringing more traffic to the Square. Mr. Barnes stated that the Foothills Square is a PUD which allows only certain types of uses. If the Farmers' Market became full-time, it would be considered a change of character and either an administrative change or an amendment to the PUD would be needed. Furthermore, the hardship was based on the fact that the Farmers' Market met only one day a week, and if the market met more often, the hardship would no longer be valid. Boardmember Leis asked how this situation compared with that of the Christmas tree sales every year. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that Christmas tree lots were allowed in zones that allowed retail sales. Signs were required to be attached to a fence or the side of a vehicle (not portable). Mr. Barnes stated further that some leniency was allowed with the signs because the Christmas trees were associated with a public holiday, and exempt under the Code. Boardmember Lieser asked if the previous Farmers' Market sign met sign code requirements. Mr. Barnes replied yes. Ms. Lieser, referring to a letter sent to the Board, asked if Mr. Mabry had more specific complaints about the appearance of the sign than those stated in the letter. Mr. Barnes stated that the letter was all the information that he had, and Mr. Mabry's main concern was with the appearance of the sign, not whether or not it should be allowed. Boardmember Lieser asked if the Board could deal with aesthetic issues - if the Board could require that the sign be redone to fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Slack stated that the Farmers' Market cooperative budget did not have funds for another sign, but would be willing to repaint the stakes to improve the appearance. There was some discussion among the boardmembers concerning their involvement with the design and aesthetics of the sign. City Attorney Roy addressed the legal issue as to what extent a board or commission could involve itself in aesthetics with regard to zoning considerations. City ZBA Minutes, Apri*986 • Page 7 Attorney Roy stated that the courts usually upheld Boards' rights to deal with aesthetics in terms of compatibility. But he stated further that in the absence of well defined standards for such things as materials, size, and style, such a ruling would be risky. Zonining Administrator Barnes addressed the compatiblity issue, describing the area where the Farmers' Market was located, stating that there was a vacant lot across the street where the Matterhorn had burnt down. There was a vacuum cleaner business on the corner and there was a large sign advertising a multi -family PUD on a neighboring property. Mr. Barnes stated that perhaps the Farmers' Market sign was compatible with the surrounding signs. Boardmember Lawton stated that the petitioner showed good faith in offering to paint the poles that support the sign. He stated that he did not find the sign offensive, and furthermore it was a temporary sign. Mr. Lawton asked what the exact dates would be for the sign to go up and come down. Ms. Slack stated that the sign would go up on May 1 and come down on the last day of market, October 1. Ms. Slack then read a letter from Sue Foster, a member of the Board for the Farmers' Market Cooperative expressing her support for the variance. Boardmember Thede stated that she thought that Mr. Mabry's objection to the sign was that it was homemade. Ms. Thede stated that the hardship was that the market only met one day a week and the sign was the best way to advertise. Boardmember Johnson agreed on the hardship as stated. Boardmember Leis stated that it was probably an issue of homemade vs. commercial work and that he did not find the sign offensive, and it was a matter of taste. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the above mentioned hardships. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Leis, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1725. Section 118-41 (F), by John Griego, owner, 604 Ninth Street - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required side q yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet 6 inches on the north side for an addition to a single family home in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to add a bathroom and wash room to the rear of the home. The home is already only 3 feet 6 inches from the north lot line and the proposed addition would line up with the existing wall due to aesthetics and ease of construction. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." No notices were returned: one letter was received. ZBA Minutes, Apri0986 • Page 8 Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the petitioner was planning to add on to the rear of the house with an existing structure. The house is 3"6" from the lot line and the addition would line up with the existing structure. This could not be done without a variance. Mrs. Griego, petitioner and owner, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that they already have the building that they were going to add to the house and were just waiting for permission to do it. The addition would line up with the house and not project any further towards the lot line. Boardmember Lieser asked if the addition would need a fire wall because of its .proximity to the neighboring house. Mr. Barnes stated that if a building is within 3 feet of a lot line, there cannot be any exterior openings in the wall, and a firewall may be required. This addition will be Y 6" from the lot line, but these issues will be discussed with a plans examiner when the building permit is applied for. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Leis, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1726. Section 118-41 (E), by Todd McHone, 1313 Alford - Approved with condition. "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet for a 14 foot by 20 foot detached storage shed in the RL zone. ---Petitioner"s statement of hardship: The lot is a shallow lot, with very little room between the house and the rear lot line. There is no way a shed could be built in the rear yard without a variance. If the shed was located anywhere else on the lot, it would be visible from the street, and this would not be desirable. ---Staff recommendation: Approval due to the shallowness of the lot." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that because of the unusual shape of the lot and the small back yard, there was no room for building the shed in the rear without a variance. Todd McHone, petitioner, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the proposed building site was the only place for the shed without detracting from the appearance of the house. He stated further that there was a small shed in the backyard in the past, but he would like to build a larger one with space for a workshop and additional storage. Boardmember Thede wanted to know the height of the shed in relation to the fence, and what materials would be used in construction, expressing concern ZBA Minutes, Apri*986 Page 9 0 that a tin shed not be built. Mr. McHone replied that it would be 11'6" to the peak of the roof, and built of materials to match the house (cedar siding, with a shingle roof). Boardmember Thede asked about the use of the workshop. Mr. McHone replied that the owner planned to use it for woodworking and repairs around the home. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Thede made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that building materials be used to match the house (cedar siding with a shingle roof) because of visibility from the neighboring property. Boardmember Lies seconded the motion stating that the hardship was the unusual shape of the lot and the small size of the backyard. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Leis, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1727. Section 118-96 (B), by David Hill, owner Dailys Restaurant, 151 S. College - Approved. "---The variance would allow a projecting wall sign to project more than 4 feet from the face of the building. Specifically, the variance would allow a 7.5 square foot sign to project 4 feet 9 inches from the face of a building. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The previous restaurant tenant erected this sign in violation of the code and went out of business without correcting the problem. The sign can't be moved closer to the building now because of the junction box and the conduit. The sign would have to be totally redone. If this were done, the petitioner would probably lower it so that it would be more visible. As it is now, the sign is not very obtrusive. The canopy from which the sign is hung extends further than the sign, so the sign is not the furthest projection. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The sign, being up so high, is not very obtrusive. Lowering the sign 3 or 4 feet and moving the sign 9 inches closer to the building as required by the Code probably isn't as desirable as leaving the sign as is." No notices were returned; one letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the sign was in violation to the code, but the previous owner had never corrected the problem. The sign was not obtrusive because of its location under the canopy, and was difficult to move because of the location of the conduit and junction box. Mr. David Hill, owner of Daleys restaurant, spoke in favor of the variance, stating that he had inherited the sign with the purchase of the business, and would prefer to leave the sign as is. However, if he had to move it, he would move it further down on the wall for more visibility. Boardmember Johnson asked what was in between the sign and the building to prevent it from being installed closer to the building and why the problem ZBA Minutes, Apr*1986 Page 10 was never corrected. Mr. Barnes gave a brief history of the sign, stating that a permit had been issued for the sign to be installed in compliance with code. However the contractor that installed the sign mounted it farther from the wall because of the conduit and the junction box. A zoning inspector found it to be projecting too far, but the the restaurannt went out of business before the problem was corrected. Boardmember Lawton stated that this was clearly a violation of the sign code, and that the variance should not necessarily be granted just because the existing sign looked better than something that could be done legally. Boardmember Lieser stated that economics was the main hardship in this appeal and that the only reason that the sign was not moved was it would be cheaper to leave it as is. Mr. Daly replied that he would prefer to leave it, but if he spent the money to bring the sign into compliance, he would move it down to a more visible site to get his money's worth. Boardmember Leis stated that he did not see much of a hardship - the petitioner had stated that he was willing to bring the sign into compliance Boardmember Johnson stated that the harship was that it was an inherited sign that did't conform to the code. Mr. Hill was not aware of the violation when he bought the business so the hardship was not self-imposed. Boardmember Lawton asked the petitioner why he asked for the variance when he was willing to move the sign. Mr. Hill replied that he was concerned with maintaining the aesthetics of the building and the present sign was not very obtrusive. Mr. Ray Dixon, owner of the property, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the sign was unobtrusive where it was, and he would prefer that it not be lowered, for aesthetic reasons. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Leis stated that although the issue of the 9" was minor, the sign was in violation of the code. However, it was a legitimate appeal because of the hardship. Boardmember Lawton restated his position that the sign was clearly illegal, and that if the Board did not agree with what was allowable, perhaps the Code should be changed. But he did not think that a variance should be granted just because the present sign was better than one that could be legally installed. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the Board needed to discuss the issue of "equal to or better than" the Code at a future date. However, in considering this variance, the Board should discuss the hardship, not whether or not the existing sign looks better than one that could be installed. ZBA Minutes, Apr 01986 Page 11 Boardmember Leis made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship that the sign was inherited, and that it could not be easily moved because to the conduit and junction box. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Leis. Nays: Lieser, Lawton. Appeal No. 1728. Section 118-41 (C), by John Snell for Neighbor to Neighbor, 513 Tenth Street - Approved. "---The variance would decrease the required lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is an existing platted lot having only 50 feet of width. The owner desires to build a new home on the lot consistent with the infill and restoration policies which have occured in this area. Nothing can be built without a variance. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that the lot was an existing lot platted with only 50 feet of width, there was no more land available to buy, and nothing could be built without a variance. Mr. Trujillo, owner of the lot, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he would be living in the house. Mr. Trujillo stated further that although a variance in the lot width would be needed to build, all the setback requirements would be met. Boardmember Thede thought that the proposed construction would be an improvement to the neighborhood. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Leis, Lawton. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1729. Section 118-41 (E), and 118-41 (F), by Marion Freeman, owner, 814 W. Mountain - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required rear q yard setback from 15 feet to 1.5 feet, and the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet for a carport addition to a detached garage in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing garage is only 16 feet deep, making it very difficult to park a car. This open carport allows for a car to be parked in while still being able to walk around it. The owner and the neighbor to the west have also had problems with dogs getting into their trash cans and this carport has allowed for the construction of an enclosed trash area to solve that problem. ZBA Minutes, Apr1*1986 Page 12 ---Staff recommendation: None." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed that appeal stating that the carport in question was already built. The rear yard setback was not met, however, it was common to find detached buildings right on the alley in this part of town. The garage to which the carport was attached was built before there were any rear setback requirements for detached buildings. Petitioner Marian Freeman, of 814 W. Mountain, spoke in favor of the appeal, reading a letter from Greg Taylor, the neighbor who would be most affected. The letter stated that Mr. Taylor had no objection to the carport. Ms. Freeman stated that she had no intentions of enclosing the carport; the openness was needed to allow room to walk around the car to the backyard. There was much discussion on the configuration of the existing garage and why it could not be modified to allow a car to be parked in it. Boardmember Leis stated his opinion that the wall of the garage could have been moved out farther — with a lot of added expense because of the existing foundation. Boardmember Lieser asked Mr. Barnes to address staffs lack of a recommendation. Mr. Barnes replied that it was because the carport addition was already built, the Board needed to make a decision on whether it would be allowed to remain. Boardmember Lieser asked if there was a problem with erecting a building that connected to the neighbors' garage, and if a permit had been issued. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that a permit had not been issued, and that the two buildings did not actually connect. Boardmember Leis stated that he had a problem with safety. If there was a fire in one garage it would very quickly spread to the garage on the adjacent property because of the carport. Mr. Barnes stated that if a permit was issued out of the Building Inspection Office, a plans examiner would require that modifications be made to the carport to reduce the fire danger. Boardmember Lieser stated that she would be in favor of the variance with the condition that the petitioner be required to apply for a building permit for the carport, and work with the Building Department to bring it up to code. Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance. No one seconded the motion. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship that the existing lot is narrow, and the old garage was configured so that parking was not possible off the alley. The motion was amended to include the condition that the petitioner obtain a building permit for the carport, and make any modifications necessary to bring it up to code. Boardmember Leis seconded that motion as amended. Yeas: Johnson, Leis Lawton. Nays: Thede, Lieser. ZBA Minutes, Apr,1986 Page 13 • Appeal No. 1730: Section 118-81 (D)(1)(b), by Bob Mooney of Larsen Associates, 400 S. College - Approved with condition. "---The variance would allow the lot on the north east corner of College and Mulberry to be used as a parking lot without being brought into compliance with various elements of the parking code, such as paving, landscaping, and setbacks. The variance would allow the lot to be used as is until June 30, 1986, while the United Bank remodel is being completed across the street. At that time, the lot will no longer be used as a parking lot. Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ---Staff recommendation: Approval, with the condition that the use of the lot as a parking lot must cease by June 30, 1986, or be brought into compliance with the Code." Four notices were returned; one letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, explaining the parking situation. Boardmember Johnson asked why the Zoning Board of Appeals could deny permission to park on a parking lot, and then the City could issue a temporary certificate of occupancy overturning the Board's decision. Mr. Barnes explained the situation stating that there was no other place for employees to park during the construction process. The temporary c.o. allowed parking in the lot during the construction period, while establishing an enforcable deadline and ensuring that the parking lot would be a temporary use. When the temporary c.o. expired, the lot would have to be vacated, or necessary improvements be made, or application for a variance be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Bob Mooney, of Larsen Associates, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that bad weather in November and December of 1985, along with the problems caused by working in an already occupied building, had put construction behind schedule. The completion date was now set at about June 30, 1986, - in about 90 days. Boardmember Lieser asked if the June 30th date included completion of all the parking lots and vacating the lot in question. Mooney replied yes - everything would be complete by the June 30th date, including adequate parking for bank employees and patrons. Boardmember Lawton asked who owned the lot in question. Mr. Mooney replied that presently United Bank owned the property, but Safeway planned to buy the property and develop it in the next 2 years. Larry Trampe, of Larson Associates, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that by allowing the United Bank employees to park in the temporary lot, the neighboring businesses were saved from being cramped by overflow parking in their private lots. He stated further that they were going through a process to acquire more parking. ZBA Minutes, Apr,0986 Page 14 Boardmember Lieser stated that the Board would like assurance that the temporary parking lot would be vacated by June 30, 1986. No one spoke in oppositon to the appeal. Boardmember Thede stated that she would not be in favor of granting an extensiton on the variance after June 30. Boardmember Leis stated that he was not opposed to the temporary use, that he understood that construction schedules could be set back due to adverse circumstatnces. He stated that his objection was the fact that people were parking their cars on the lot with "For Sale" signs in the window and the lot was beginning to look like a used car lot. He would like to prohibit employees from advertising cars there. Barbara Ashley, of United Bank, addressed the above problem, stating that United Bank employees were not advertising their cars on the lot, other people were. She stated further that United Bank had dealt with the problem to the best of its ability. They had contacted the Police Department and had been informed that having the cars towed involved a 72 hour period of orange tagging before the car was removed. The Bank had better luck with contacting the people who owned the cars and asking them to remove them. However, often the cars would be moved back onto the lot during the weekend, and the Bank did not have the means to police the lot all the time. Boardmember Leis asked if all the users were United Bank employees. Ms. Allison replied that as far as she knew they were. Ms. Allison stated further that Safeway had contacted her asking if arrangements could be made to have their employees park in the lot, but she told them the agreement with the City restricted the use to United Bank employees only, for temporary use only. Boardmember Leis stated that perhaps Ms. Allson could look into methods to restrict the parking lot use to United Bank employees by using such methods as private ticketing, or issuing parking permits. Ms. Allison stated that she would be willing to look into the suggestions. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that temporary use cease by June 30, 1986. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Lawton. Nays: Leis, because he felt that the June 30th deadline was not necessary. Other Business: There was discussion on the possibility of amending the City Code to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider the criteria of "equal or better than" when considering a variance that does not violate the intent of the code, but does not have a clear—cut hardship under the current definition. The discussion was prompted by several cases in which requiring compliance to the code resulted in conditions that were worse than those appled for in a variance. Boardmember Thede expressed her concern that if the Board was allowed to use "equal to or better than the Code" as a criteria, the .public would use it too. City Attorney Roy stated that adequate standards would have ZBA Minutes, Apr,01986 Page 15 i to be set. Boardmember Johnson stated that there could be the danger of a liberal Board applying the criteria too broadly and making the Zoning Code meaningless. Desplite the possible problems stated above, the Board thought that the issue was worth looking into. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb April 8, 1986 To Whom It May Concern: 6MRDi 152 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (303) 493-8585 I would strongly encourage you to consider allowing merchants in Oak Street Place and Oak Place to place portable signs by their outside entrances. This allows merchants inside, without any window exposure, the opportunity to advertise more directly to the downtown shoppers. It is particularly important for new businesses as their resources for advertising are often very limited. It certainly behooves both the merchant and the landlord to have an attractive sign with timely and pertinent information for the passersby. Since we are all concerned about the appearance of downtown, I suggest that at least this proposal be accepted on a trial basis so that any misgivings can be fully tested. Sincerely yours, <(���� Carey Hewitt Owner mjg • March 24, 1986 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administration Office of Building Inspector Box 580 300 LaPorte Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is confirmation of the agreement between The Square Shopping Mall and the Farmer's Market to erect a a sign between May 1, 1986 and October 1, 1986 at The Square Shopping Mall, 3500 South College Avenue, Fort Collins. If you have any questions, please contact me or Sally Fox at The Square Management Office, 223-1229. Sincerely, Mary D. Hagen Marketing Director The Square Shopping Mall MDH/sjf 3500 South College Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (303) 223-1229 RECEIVED APR 8 1986 IIIMitchell & (o. April 4, 1986 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Pete: _? / %9 V This letter is written concerning Appeal No. 1724 of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Specifically the request was to allow two freestanding signs for a single property to allow identification of the Farmers' Market on the north- east corner of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and College Avenue. We own, either ourselves or through partnerships for which we are the general partner, numerous properties in and around that area. We had the opportunity to observe the sign that was allowed to be constructed at that location under a variance granted last year and feel that last year's sign was an obtrusive detriment to the area. Although we do not have objection to the granting of the variance, we do have objection to the quality, size, and appearance of the sign that the variance would allow. We would strongly suggest that if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance, a requirement of such variance should be that the sign must be tasteful as to color, size, and design, and must be compatible with the quality of the area. We are all proud in this community of the quality of signage, and we should not allow one individual nor organization to detract from that quality. Sincerely, G. C. Mabry Executive Vice Pkesident GCM:kam #1 OLD TOWN SQUARE • SUITE 201 • P.O. BOX 1208 • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 • (303) 493-2200 No Text �, 3 PRESCRIPTION SPECIALISTS DRUGS ARTHUR R. GROVERT PHOTO SUPPLIES HAROLD J. GROVERT SUNDRIES "aY ,yqT � - R• U G 2'`' +' r .. GIfT ITEMS 101 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS. COLORADO PHONE 483.1334 4/4/86/ �� 7 P:r. Peter `?arnes Zoning Ad dnistr•=,tor Office Bld. Inspection 300 LaPorto ^:ve. P.O. Pox 580, -CC 05�2 Dear Sir, 'Phis letter is in reference to our conversation on 4/4/86 regarding v:rience of Code Sections 118-96-B. This issue appears on the Zoning Board of Aoceals agenda ns appeal ''a. 1727. This variance would allow a 7.5 sq. ft. sign to pro,iect 4 ft. 9 inches fron the face of the building. We feel the sign code is for the eood of everyone and that everyone should :bide by t_:e code. ile had to abide by the code and we feel everyone else should do li:tewise. S°rcerely, lr1 -;outh College Ave., Ft. Ccllins, Cclo.8r524. April 2, 1986 Greg Taylor 816 W. Mountain Fort Collins, CO 80521 To Whom It May Concern: I have no objection to the garage improvements in the back of Marion Freeman's property at 814 W. Mountain, adjacent to my garage at 816 W. Mountain. Feel free to contact me at 493-9397, if you require fur- ther comment. Th k you Aegylor L� . ,, 173) Larsen Associates Professional Corporation March 27, 1986 Mr. Peter Barnes Chief Zoning Inspector City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 f11E: Temporary Parking ti United Bank of Fort Collins Dear Peter: As you are aware from our previous conVerfations, construction of the new motor bank, demolition of the existing teller wing, and construction of the new entry for the downtown facility of United Bank has been progressing slower than originally expected. The delays were caused initially by the onset of an early winter which caused us to delay paving the new motor bank, which in turn contributed to further delays. we currently anticipate this construction should be complete in another 90 days. During the height of construction activities, we will be as many as 45 parking spaces shy from the required off-street parking spaces per the Zoning Code. This shortage will result when all parking facilities on -site at United Bank are under construction, and the only off-street spaces remaining will be at the northwest corner of Magnolia and College. Upon the completion of the construction of the new motor bank and the demolition of the existing motor banks, United Bank will once again be able to meet the off-street parking requirements of the City with parking on the bank site and the site across the street on Magnolia. I must point out that none of these parking counts use any of the diagonal parking along Magnolia Street which is used primarily by bank patrons. Also as you are aware, our long-range plans call for the acquisition of the Safeway site to the south of us, and the ultimate use of that building and its parking lot to further accommodate our parking needs. Larry G. Trampe, Principal Member American Institute of Architects 7 Clock Tower Square 323 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524-2898 303 484-0126 Mr. Peter Barnes March 27, 1986 Page Two This letter is a formal request for extension of the temporary parking permit on the vacant block bordered by Mulberry, College, Magnolia and Remington Streets directly across the street east from United Bank. We would request the use of this vacant lot for tem- porary parking for the use of employes during the period of con- struction of the new motor bank, and the demolition and construction of a new larking lot where the existing motor bank is now located. We anticipate this construction to be ending no later than June 30, 1986. I trust all information needed for this request is contained herein. If not, please contact -eithLzr me. We look forward to working with the City throughout this process. Sincerely, t J. Moone A.I.A. Project Archi ct RJM:jds xc: Barb Ashley Dennis Sinnett