HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/11/2000I
Minutes approved by the Board at the .Lune 8, 2000 Meiling
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — May 11, 2000
9.00 am.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760)
Chairperson: William Stockover ! Phone: 482-4895 (H)
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 11, 2000, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
• ._t ) ul uIa : _ - C
Thad Pawlikowski, Andy Miscio, Martin Breth, William Stockover, David Ayraud, Diane
Shannon
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Steve Remington
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken.
2. APROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the April 13,
2000 meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously,
with Breth and Ayraud abstaining.
3. APPEAL 2294: -- Approved
Address:
320 E. Mulberry St
Petitioner:
Ann Hughes, Owner
Zone:
NCB
Section:
4.8(D)(3)(c) and 4.8(D)(3)(d)
11
Back rg ound:
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 2
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the alley from 5 feet to 0 feet
and reduce the required side yard setback from the east lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet in order
to allow the existing flat -pitched roof to be removed and replaced with a new gable roof. The
existing walls of the garage will remain.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing garage/carriage house is very old. The current flat -roof is in bad shape and
leaks a great deal. Rather than replace it with another flat roof, the owner desires to construct
a gable roof. Such a roof will match the roof of the house. The existing walls will remain, so
there will be no greater deviation from the setbacks than already existing.
Staff Comments:
Peter Barnes presented slides relative to this appeal. Barnes showed slides of the existing
detached flat roofed building, commenting that the new gable end walls would be considered
new construction and would have to comply with the required Code setbacks. Slides were
viewed of the alley at the north of the building and to the east where the property line is
approximately 2 feet from the existing building. Barnes showed slides of neighboring
properties and their detached buildings that are along the alley. Barnes stated that it is the
new wall area in the gable end that triggers the need for a variance. Slides were shown of the
back of the Applicant's house and the current remodeling project that is underway.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Ann Hughes, addressed the Board. Hughes remarked that the existing roof leaks
badly on the detached building will have to be replaced. Hughes expressed her desire to
make the roof architecturally more appealing. Hughes commented that the first two courses
of brick may need to be removed due to their deterioration.
Ayraud asked the Applicant if there were any other flat roofed buildings currently in the
neighborhood. Hughes responded that she did not believe there were any.
Public Participation:
Stacie Hopner, addressed the Board. Hopner resides at 330 E. Mulberry Street and
commented that she and other neighbors in the area are in favor of granting this variance
because the Applicant's carriage house is not as appealing as similar structures in the
neighborhood due to the flat roof.
Board Discussion:
Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2294 for the hardship created by the existing
location of the building. Breth seconded the motion.
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 3
Vote:
Yeas: PawlikowskL Miscio, Breth, Stockover, Ayraud, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal #2294 was approved.
4. APPEAL 2295: --Approved
Address: 2351 Busch Drive
Petitioner: Steven D. McDaniel, Plant Manager, Anheuser-Busch
Zone: I
Section: 3.8.7(I)
Background:
The variance would allow an individual letter sign to exceed 7 feet in height. Specifically,
the variance would allow the existing 19 foot tall `Budweiser" individual letter signs on the
north and south walls to be removed and replaced with new 15 feet tall "Budweiser"
individual letter signs. (Only the `B", "d" and "i" will be 15 feet tall, the other letters will be
10.5 feet tall). The new signs will result in a 24% size reduction and a 64% brightness
reduction from the current signs.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter. Also, the intent of the code is being met since the height limit of wall
signs is intended to protect the streetscape along urban arterial streets and commercial strips
by enduring that the size of the wall sign is in keeping with the mass and scale of buildings.
The location, mass and scale of the AB building are very unique and the larger signs will
actually enhance the appearance of the large walls by providing necessary articulation and
variation.
Staff Comments:
Barnes recounted a brief history of the Sign Code and the aspects of the Code that resulted in
the need for a variance request from the Applicant. Barnes summarized that before 1994,
there were no height limitations for wall signs in the Sign Code. The inclusion of height
restrictions for wall signs after 1994 was tailored mainly to address those issues along
commercial strips and streetscapes and restricted wall signs to a height of 7 feet. Barnes
mentioned that the 1994 sign code changes included a 15 year amortization period for the
removal of all signs that do not comply with the new regulations, which in the case of this
Appeal, would allow Anheuser-Busch to keep their existing larger non -conforming sign for
another 9 years.
Barnes presented slides relative to this Appeal. Slides were shown of the Anheuser-Busch
building with varied views of the existing sign. Barnes commented that while the proposed
sign would not comply with the Code, it would be more in conformance than the existing
C1
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 4
sign which could remain for 9 more years and the new sign would be 24% smaller and 64%
dimmer than the existing sign.
Applicant Participation:
Steven McDaniel, addressed the Board. McDaniel stated that the reason Anheuser-Busch
desired to change the existing sign to the smaller proposed sign was due to several factors;
the existing sign is now 10 years old and it no longer conforms to the company brand image
and corporate standards.
Richard Godby, addressed the Board. As the project manager in charge of the proposed sign
change, Godby presented engineering details regarding the proposed sign. Godby mentioned
that the proposed sign would only be 10% of the height of the building, whereas, buildings
that prompted the wall height restrictions in the Code encompass approximately 1/3 of those
buildings. Godby stated that the Anheuser-Busch building is 800 feet from I-25, 3,500 feet
from Busch Drive and 1,500 feet from County Road 9.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Shannon commented that the proposed sign appears to be a better sign than the existing sign
and sees a hardship that the Code did not consider the proportions relative to the size of the
building.
Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2295 for the hardship stated. Miscio seconded
the motion.
Ayraud asked the Board to consider amending to the motion to include stating several
hardships; the extensive land plot size to the extensive building size and the location of the
land and the building, being that they are in a remote location to the remainder of the City.
Ayraud suggested that there be an extended period of allowance that would permit them to
keep signs that were almost 3 times the size allowed by the current Code regulations.
Ayraud commented that the sign to building scale relation is much smaller than other
concerns addressed by the City Code. Ayraud commented that the motion referred to the
hardship stated in the Petitioner's letter of Hardship was not very specific as to why their
building had a hardship as opposed to other buildings in the City, other than encompassing a
large land size.
Breth agreed that an amendment was needed, as the Petitioner's Statement of Hardship letter
is not an official statement for the record.
Paul Eckman commented that the amendment helps to clarify the hardship and helps to focus
this down and possibly eliminate problems in the future with regards to over -broad
interpretation of the motion and granting of the variance if it would be approved.
C�
•
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 5
Barnes cited the example of the changeable banners in Old Town Square. Barnes stated that
and that City Ordinance limits banners to be displayed for no more than 20 days per calendar
year, but they applied for a variance to be able to display banners year round. Barnes
commented that the Board at the time struggled for hours this concerns of the precedent they
may be setting by approving the banner variance. Bames said that the Board came up with
very specific, unique aspects of Old Town Square and enumerated all of those for the record,
which made it beneficial for Staff when approached by other business complexes, explaining
that they would have to meet the same criteria as was required for the approval of the banner
variance.
Ayraud asked the Board to consider adding to the amendment that this variance approval
would only apply to the signs proposed in this appeal and if they were to place other signs
that did not meet Code compliance, they would have to apply for a new variance. Ayraud
commented that this condition would prevent future problems in Anheuser-Busch were to
alter their building or land size, or if the City were to grow closer to their site, possibly
preventing them from meeting all of the condition criteria.
Shannon amended the motion to include the conditions that the approval of the variance be
only for the proposed sign changes of this Appeal and the approval be based on the hardships
of an extensive land plot and building size. Breth seconded the amended motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Miscio, Breth, Stockover, Ayraud, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal #2295 was approved.
5. APPEAL 2296: -- Approved
Address: 11113 Maple Street
Petitioner: David Freele, Tenant
Zone: NCM
Section: Section —none
Background:
On April 13, 2000, the Applicant received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
reduce the front setback requirement from 15 feet to 12 feet in order to allow an addition.
The variance was approved with the condition that a curb -cut be installed for the driveway
area. The Applicant is requesting that this condition be removed since the curb in front of the
home is a "Hollywood" curb, which is an acceptable drive -over curb and is the type of curb
found in front of most of the other homes on Maple Street. The Board mistakenly thought
the curb was a non -drive -over vertical curb.
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 6
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
None.
Marty Breth excused himself from hearing Appeal #2296 due to his absence from hearing the
previous appeal.
Staff Comments:
Barnes recounted proceedings from the April 13, 2000 meeting. At that meeting, the Board
had approved the variance for Appeal #2291 with the condition that the existing curb be
removed and replaced with an appropriate drive -over curb, and although it was not a
condition placed upon approval of the variance, the Board encouraged the Applicant to
continue dialog with the City Engineering Department regarding the placement of a sidewalk
in front of the property. The Board believed the curb to be a vertical curb, which would
require a vehicle to "jump" the curb to get over it. The Applicant is requesting that the curb -
cut condition be removed from the previous Appeal due to the fact that it is a "Hollywood"
curb, which is an acceptable drive -over curb.
Barnes stated that a representative of the City Engineering Department, Tracy Dyer, was
present to answer any questions on the appropriateness of the "Hollywood" curb.
Shannon asked Barnes if area neighbors had been notified of this new appeal by the
Applicant, as there was some opposition by a neighbor at the last appeal for Mr. Freele.
Barnes confirmed that the appropriate notification letters had gone out to area neighbors for
Appeal #2296.
Stockover questioned Barnes if the record for the approval of Appeal #2291 showed any
stipulations on driveway improvements in addition to the curb replacement. Barnes referred
to the minutes from the previous meeting, stating that the only condition was that a curb -cut
be installed as per city Engineering standards and provisions made for additional parking.
Barnes commented that unless a property has a parking lot with more than 5 spaces, City
Code does not require a hard surface for parking, therefore, a gravel driveway would be
acceptable. Barnes mentioned that the Applicant may wish to continue this dialog to discuss
the progress of the sidewalk to be placed in front of the property which could affect the
appearance of the driveway with the sidewalk.
Applicant Participation:
David Freele, addressed the Board. Freele commented that when he first occupied the
property, he was concerned with the lack of a sidewalk, as children from a nearby elementary
school would be walking by the property. Freele stated that after talking with City
Engineering, it was proposed that a sidewalk would be placed in front of his property, either
this summer, or early next year. Freele said when it was time for the City to pour the
sidewalk, he would then decide if he could also incorporate a curb approach to his driveway.
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 7
Freele addressed the issue off-street parking that had concerned his neighbor, stating that he
is planning to have a 20 ft. by 40 ft. area with six inches of gravel for the driveway. Freele
commented that he has spoken with the neighbor who had voiced concerns and now the
neighbor has no opposition with what he is proposing.
Board Discussion:
Ayraud asked the Board to consider delaying the requirement to have the Applicant install a
curb -cut until the City installs the sidewalk, as the Applicant had expressed there may be a
possibility of some cost -sharing with the City at that time.
Shannon commented that if the existing "Hollywood" curb was considered adequate as a
driveway entrance, perhaps the Board should remove the condition that the curb -cut be
installed.
Stockover mentioned that part of the reasoning for placing the condition for the curb -cut, was
to make the driveway be as appealing as possible to entice people to drive into the driveway
to park as opposed to parking on the street.
Barnes commented that the reason a curb -cut was even discussed at the last Appeal was
because the Applicant's neighbor had brought it up as being an issue, otherwise, it probably
would not have been brought up.
Miscio commented that if the existing curb is considered appropriate and meets the City
requirements, he did not feel it was appropriate for the Board to impose restrictions that the
Applicant be required to do something different.
Shannon made a motion to amend the previously approved variance (Appeal #2291) and
remove the condition that was placed on acceptance of the Appeal in regards to the curb -cut,
due to the fact that the Board misunderstood the nature of the curb. Miscio seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Miscio, Stockover, Shannon
Nays: None
Abstain: Ayraud
Appeal #2296 was approved.
Other Business:
Marty Breth rejoined the Board for further discussion.
Barnes prompted Board discussion regarding the use of hardships in approval of variances
and a proposal of possible changes. Paul Eckman extrapolated on the legalities included in
Section 2.10.2(H)(8) of the Code.
ZBA
May 11, 2000
Page 8
There was Board discussion on the possibility of requesting a Code change giving the Board
the ability to make a finding that the proposed plans presented to the Board advances the
purposes of the law which they are trying to circumvent equally well, or better than the actual
compliance.
It was decided that the Board would consider submitting a proposal to City Council to make
changes in the Code to include the "equal to or better than" clause after they have time to
review a draft of the proposal with some possible scenarios that Eckman will provide. The
Board would then meet for a work session to discuss if they would continue with a submittal
to Council. Barnes suggested that at that time, perhaps the Board could look at some appeals
that have been denied under the current Code requirements to see how they would be
addressed using the "equal to or better than" scenario.
Meeting adjourned at 10.05 a.m.
William Stockover, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator