Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/10/2000Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: William Stockover Phone: 482-4895 (I� n A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday August 10, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Miscio Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Thad Pawlikowski STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. ZBA August 10, 2000 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2 A motion was made by Board Member Remington to approve the minutes from the July 13, 2000, meeting. Board Member Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL NO.: 2308—Denied Address: 4709 South Timberline Road Petitioner: Western Sign, Contractor Zone: HC Section: 3.8.7 (1) Background: The variance would allow a flush wall sign to extend more than twelve inches from the face of the building. Specifically, to allow signage on an aluminum arch that extends two and a half feet from the face of the building. The sign is proposed for the Old Chicago Restaurant. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is the new corporate image for all new Old Chicago building entrances for buildings built within the last year and a half. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The building is located in Harmony Village. The proposed south signage will extend out two and a half feet from the face of the building. The sign would be visible from Timberline Road. The Applicant has sign permits previously applied for on the north and west side of the building. The signs for the north and west are flush with the building. The sign code only allows a twelve inch extension from the face of the building. Peter Barnes explained that the sign code limits flush wall signs to a projection of no more than twelve inches from the face of a building. The variance could have also been worded that it would allow a projecting wall sign to exceed fifteen 0 ZBA August 10, 2000 Page 3 square feet. Barnes clarified the difference between flush wall signs and projecting signs. Jenny Nuckols stated that a letter from the developer of this property has been received. The letter stated that Old Chicago could use no more than sixty percent of the sign allowance. Applicant Participation: Terry Jenson, the representative for the sign company hired by Old Chicago, addressed the Board and passed out photographs of the proposed sign. Mr. Jenson stated that over the past year and a half Old Chicago has put in arched signs at the building entrances. The sign usually extends four feet out from the building, but for this variance it would only be two and a half feet. The extension allows for ease of service and interest to the building. Board Member Shannon asked how the servicing of the sign would be affected if it were flush. Applicant Jenson responded that the sign would still have to be serviced from behind, but the service workers would need to be above the sign and use the top access doors. Board Member Shannon asked if there were a practical reason besides it being the company's new image. The Applicant stated there was no practical reason. Board Member Miscio asked if the sign would work if it were flush with the building. The Applicant responded that it could, but would need to be redesigned a little. A discussion was held regarding significant differences between an extension of the sign and being twelve inches from the wall. The Applicant stated that for Old Chicago to comply with Code, the sign would have to be redesigned. The arch would have to be taken out and the letters put on the building. Board Member Remington asked the Applicant if there was any intention at some point to have a sign like this downtown, and if a variance would be needed. ZBA August 10, 2000 Page 4 Peter Barnes mentioned that if a sign were to be put downtown, a variance would be needed as well. It would be the same issue. The Applicant responded that it was not the intent to change the sign for all of the restaurants. Board Discussion: Board Member Shannon felt that Old Chicago should adapt to the community standard by conforming to the Code. Miscio agreed with Shannon. Miscio stated that consistency is aesthetically pleasing. Miscio also believed that by having a flat flush sign the business would not be hurt. A flat sign would still allow recognition for Old Chicago. Miscio had a difficult time finding a hardship. Board Member Remington agreed. The Applicant asked if Old Chicago had made the arch a part of the building would it have gone through the building department and been approved as part of the building. Peter Barnes explained to the Applicant why this idea would not have been approved. Board Member Miscio made a motion to deny appeal number 2308 on having the sign extend in excess of the twelve inches from the building due to the lack of hardship and lack of conformity with the sign code. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Shannon, Stockover, and Remington. Nays: None. Appeal number 2308 was denied. 4. APPEAL NO.: 2309 — Approved Address: 510 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Lynne Hull, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 3.8.3 (1) 0 ZBA August 10, 2000 Page 5 Background: The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in a detached building, rather than within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing detached garage on the rear portion of the lot to be used as a workshop/art studio. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home is small, with no spare room. The existing garage is large and is a more suitable building in which to work with wood and paint, etc. There is no attached garage. If the garage were attached, then a variance would not be needed. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. She stated that the house is small with no attached garage. The home is on a fifty feet by two hundred feet lot. The Board has seen several requests of this nature. If the garage were attached a variance would not be needed. Applicant Particination: Lynne Hull addressed the Board. She stated her hardship to be difficulty in finding studio space for artists. For four years she has been working out of a barn on a farm that is twenty miles round trip, although most of the time she works outdoors in other communities. There are no sales from her studio. Her studio does not generate any traffic, the noise level is low, and she does not work at night. Board Member Shannon asked Applicant Hull where she would park her car. The Applicant responded that the house has a gravel pull out along the side of it that she will use. The Applicant will also leave one section of the garage open to be used as a parking space. Board Member Shannon then asked if a delivery van would be bringing the Applicant materials. The Applicant stated she works primarily with natural materials and assured the Board no delivery van would be used. Allan Hacker of 514 Whedbee Street addressed the Board to show his support of the Applicant's variance request. L, Board Discussion: ZBA August 10, 2000 Page 6 Board Member Miscio questioned if the Applicant should ever leave and sell the property would that continue as a studio for the next person. Board Member Shannon stated that the Board could designate that the variance stays with this owner. Miscio was in favor of the variance, although he was concerned with it being allowed for the next person. Board Member Remington was in favor of the variance. The hardship seen by Remington was the fifty -foot lot making it difficult to have an attached garage. Board Member Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2309 for the specific use of a workshop/art studio for this particular owner based on the hardship stated and the narrowness of the lot. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Shannon, Stockover, and Remington. Nays: None. Appeal number 2309 was approved. 5. Other Business The September meeting has been designated the annual meeting at which time the election of officers for chairperson and vice -chairperson will be held. Next month the final draft language for the proposed ordinance change allowing the Board to expand their variance authority and decision making will be brought forward also. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m. ,j._- ✓� / William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator