HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/12/2009FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — February 12, 2009
8:30 a.m.
II Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (416-2355) 11
Il Chairperson: Dwight Hall
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday; February 12, 2009 at
8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue,
ForLcollins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael.Bello
Alison Dickson
Dwight Hall .
'Dana McBride
David Shands
EXCUSED ABSENCES:
Ronald Daggett
Jim Pisula
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
• Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Sue Houseal; Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Bello made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 8, 2009 meeting.
Shands seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Vote:
Yeas` Dickson; McBride, Hall, Shands, Bello
Nays: None
Abstain:
3. APPEAL NO. 2638 - Approved
Address: 1809 North College Avenue
Petitioner: Ron Berry, Lamplighter Lodging
Zone: CN
Section: 3.8.7(A)(3)(b)
Background. The variance will allow an 18 month time extension by which the existing Lamplighter
Motel monument sign must be brought into compliance with the 1994.sign code changes.
Specifically, the 1994 code change allowed a 15 year amortization period for the replacement of
nonconforming signs. The City of Fort Collins is currently planning the North College and Willox
Lane intersection improvements project, which will require the acquisition of some additional right-
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 2
of -way from numerous properties. The Lamplighter is one such property which will be affected by
the project. Until such time as the right-of-way is acquired and the project is completed, it is not
known where the new Lamplighter replacement sign can be located. Therefore a time extension is
requested, and during such time extension, the Lamplighter signage will be removed from the
existing structure and replaced with a new "America's Best Value Inn" sign.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See letter from City of Fort Collins dated January 26, 2009.
Staff Comments: This is a reasonable request given the pending street improvements which will
require additional right-of-way from this property. This is an unusual situation applicable to this
property and requiring compliance before the details of the street project are completed would
result in an undue hardship upon the applicant since a sign would have to be constructed twice.
Staff Presentation: The Lamplighter motel is located very close to the intersection of Willox and
North College Ave. As just indicated, there is a proposal for development on the property on the
other side of North College for a new shopping center, North College Market Place. It will include a
large King Sooper's store. That development is going to trigger intersection improvements which
are going to extend quite a ways on College and it's going to affect the Lamplighter Motel property
as well as Legacy Auto to the north and properties at the corner. As indicated in the letter that was
submitted on behalf of the applicant from the City of Fort Collins Real Estate Services Department
regarding the issues, the fact that it hasn't been designed yet creates a problem for the owner in
that if they put up the new sign now it will probably have to be moved again. Therefore the request
for the time extension of 18 months. During that 18-month time extension, part of the variance
request would be to allow the Lamplighter signage to be removed and replaced with signage for
Americas Best Value.
Barnes showed slides relevant to this appeal. He stated the existing Lamplighter sign is 22 feet in
overall height at about an 8 foot setback from the right-of-way line. The Code requires that at that
existing setback from the right-of-way line, a monument cannot exceed 9' in overall height. Also at
that setback the size of the sign can't exceed 70 to 72 sq. ft. per side. He referred to the drawings
provided to the board and the dimensions of the size of the sign. Those were calculated on the
size of the sign structure being 10 ft by 10 ft., approximately 100 sq. ft. per side. Barnes said he
believed, and perhaps the owner could address this, the new America's Best Value Inn sign that
would be there would be smaller than the existing 100 sq. ft. per side.
Dickson asked about the drawing on the last page of packet. She said it looks like they are
proposing to replace it with a 7' high sign now. Barnes replied that he needed to say that Ron
Berry, the owner of the Lamplighter, was the first person who contacted his office after the letters
were sent out last February reminding people they had one year to comply. Ron was very good
about keeping Barnes informed about their plans that they were going to take care of it running
various scenarios by me to make sure they were on the right track. This new issue came up very
recently when the City was there doing some survey work for the street improvements: That's
when the city began working with Mr. Berry regarding this issue.
Dickson commented that the existing sign would be closer to the property line than it currently is.
Barnes replied it could even be in the new right-of-way. Dickson asked if what they're seeing on
the drawing is representative of what they plan to do right now. Barnes said no, not with regard to
the overall height. It might be representative as to the sign cabinet they want to place on the
existing structure. Dickson asked Bames if the board needs to decide to how:.tall the sign can be
right -now.- Barnes said. no, they were just asking for an .18-month extension to leave the existing
sign structure as is until the whole issue is resolved. ,Dickson asked if they're asking to put
America's Best Value Inn on .that existing structure and it might still be 22 feet tall. Barnes clarified
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 3
that it will be exactly as shown on the drawing except the signage would.be replaced with one of
the America's Best Value Inn franchise signs.
Applicant's Presentation:, Ron Berry, 1809 N. College Ave.
Berry stated that he owns the Lamplighter Motel; they are remodeling the motel, completely
redoing it inside and out and may have to revise.the remodel since there will probably be less land
in the front. When they found out the city was proposing to change the property line, they planned
on going,with a two-sided pole sign set back as far as it would have to be after the final road
design,. Berry was not sure at this time what the dimensions would. be. Originally they planned to
cut the; sign structure down to just two feet high and put a double; sided box on top of it, leaving the
monument and the green stone emblem. Now that they know of the proposed changes, they
realize the. entire monument sign will have to be removed. . .
There was discussion with the applicant about the history of the monument sign.
Audience Participation: Lindsay Kuntz with the City of Fort Collins real estate services stated that
she drafted the letter to the boar6dated January 26, 2009. She said she wanted to give.the board
some background information as to why Ron Berry even had to request this. Kuntz coordinates
with Engineering on capital projects to work with affected property owners during right-of-way .
projects to negotiate any property,interests the city may need to acquire•for those improvements.
As Barnes explained,- the North: College Market Place has been on thetable for quite -a while now
and it' actually starting to move forward pretty quickly. With. that increased traffic flow it's required
that•the city put some intersection improvements at College and Willox, an intersection that has
issues anyway. The conceptual drawings show a rightturn lane coming from the north that will
actually extend all the way up along the Lamplighter and along Legacy Motors and begin on that
vacant parcel that is just to the north. That's per the design standards that were already in. place
with the CDOT plans. Kuntz originally contacted the Lamplighter owners in early December to let
them know about the upcoming project, and they were the first owners to contact them to get a•
meeting together. They were planning to get the sign done right away to get it in compliance by
the deadline. When meeting with the owners, staff only had conceptual drawings; no surveying
had been done yet, so there wasn't adequate information for them to even begin looking at an
alternative location on their property. Surveying has been completed. Staff has gotten preliminary
design drawings back which they were just starting to look at. When.the design is in place, staff
will get back with the owners and look at what exactly will need to be acquired. She said they will
work with the owners through the whole process as to where the sign will work or not work and
what it will look like. As far as the project goes, she believes that Engineering is hoping to go out
to bidinlate fall or winter and begin construction in the spring of 2010.
Hall asked if 18 months would be sufficient. Kuntz answered yes.
McBride asked how far into Mr. Barry's property she thinks these rights -of way are going to
protrude. Kuntz answered she cannot give a definitive answer at this time but by looking :at the
conceptual drawings, she would guess approximately .10 ft. in. .The•property.to the south is more in
line with what the ultimate design for North College needs to be. McBride asked if a sidewalk
needs to come through there also. Kuntz answered yes, a sidewalk will be designed in there which
hasn't been figured out yet because they're trying to alleviate as much impact as possible, but also
need to get those necessary improvements in there
Shands stated the applicant's request for an extension sounds like a reasonable request to him
Board Discussion:
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 4
Hall stated he agreed with David; it's more than reasonable based on the information they've
gotten.
Dickson asked if the board needs to give this the hardship criteria. Hall replied he thinks it's a
unique situation in that with the -pending improvements to the intersection, it would make it difficult
to comply with the code because they don't know where the property line is going to be.
McBride asked if a sign has ever gotten historical status to be left as it is. " Barnes said yes there
have been a couple, the Armstrong hotel and the Northern, and the sign code exem pts'sig ns that
have been found by the Landmark Preservation commission -to be of historical significance. But as
far as he knows they haven't done anything with this. McBride noted that it's just one of the nicer
signs the way it fits in with the building,'same building materials, and'it seems a shame to have to
tear it down. But he was in favor of the extension.
Hall stated that the change in content of the sign is not really consequential
Hall made a motion to approve Appeal #2638 for the following reasons: 1) Granting the
variance would not be detrimental•to the public good. 2) It is a hardship and is an exception
because of the pending intersection improvements. The lot line location will probably
change, making it difficult for the property owner to.locatb the sign in the appropriate place.
The extra time will allow them to get that information so they can do it correctly once, and
this particular application of the standard would cause them to have to.do the sign more
than one time in all likelihood. 3) The content of the sign change is inconsequential to the
situation. McBride seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
Votes:
Yeas: McBride, Hall, Shands, Bello, Dickson
Nays: None
Abstain:
4. APPEAL NO.
2639 -Approved
Address:
1619 Enfield St
Petitioner:
Diane Dumais
Zone:
RL
Section:
4.4(D)(2)(d )
Background: The variance will reduce the required street side setback along Big Ben Drive from
15 ft. to 11.5 ft. in order to allow the existing porch cover to remain in its current location. The
porch cover was constructed by a.previous homeowner about 25 years ago without a permit. The
new owner would like to obtain a permit for the porch now.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The new owner was fixing up the current porch and painting it
when a building inspector stopped by thinking that it was new construction. Since a permit and the
required inspections were never obtained and completed, the current owner needs to get a permit
now and would like to'keep the 25 year old porch as it is.
Staff Comments: The street side property line along Big Ben Drive is approximately 5' behind.the
sidewalk. Therefore, the porch is 16' from the back of the walk, which is a one foot greater setback
from the sidewalk than what is required for the properties directly abutting this7lot to the south.
Those properties are in the LMN zone, whereas the subject property is in the RL zone.
j
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 5
Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal: The property is located on the
corner of Enfield and Big Ben Dr. He pointed out the porch cover.on an aerial and said he went
back to the earliest aerial he could find, which was 1999. Barnes said he didn't know exactly when
it was built and doesn't know if the applicant has found out additional information. This property
and every property north of this property line is zoned RL; everything south of that property line is
zoned LMN. The setback request is to reduce the setback along Big Ben Dr. from 15 feet to 11.5
feet. The porch is currently 16 feet from the back of the sidewalk. That is a one foot greater
setback from the sidewalk than what is required for the properties directly abutting this lot to the
south. Those properties are in the LMN zone whereas this subject property is in the RL. He
pointed out the zoning district line. The properties directly to the south of the subject property
require a 15 foot setback from the property line which is the back of the sidewalk. So directly south
of this lot a building can be within 15 feet of the back of the sidewalk:and this existing porch cover
is 16 feet from the back of the walk along Big Ben Dr.
As indicated the owner was fixing up this older porch cover, the building inspector was out in the
newer development doing some inspections, noticed this and thought it was -new construction. He
stopped by and. asked'the owner to check with the City since there was no permit, so the owner
needs to get a permit now and have it inspected.
Bello asked what subdivision and what part of town this property is in. Barnes replied this is the
Rossborough Subdivision, southwest part of town, north of Horsetooth, east ofTaft Hill Rd.
between Shields and Taft Hill.
Hall asked if Barnes said that the property line is 5 feet back from the sidewalk. Barnes said in this
particular subdivision, that is correct. Hall asked if this is typical. In subdivisions built in the 70's
like this was, that's -typical.
Hall asked about the fence not being in the property. Barnes replied that was right; the fence is in
the right-of-way and that's the situation on a lot of corner lots in these old parts of town. You will
find fences that are close to the sidewalk; in that stretch in those older subdivisions where there is
that 5 foot area between the back of the lot and the property line, you're going to find fencing,
irrigation systems, landscaping, all put in by the homeowner. They maintain it, they don't pay taxes
on that part of the property, but the city allows those types of encroachments into the right-of-way.
Hall asked if the fence is okay and Barnes replied yes.
Applicant Presentation: Diane Dumais, 1619 Enfield Street
Dumais stated that she bought the subject property in June of 2007 and the patio structure was
already in place when she bought it. The applicant presented a letter from the previous property
owner, Michael R. Christopher: To whom it may concern: I owned the property at 1619 Enfield St.
in Fort Collins from 1994 until I sold it to Diane Dumais in 2007. The patio structure was already in
place when I purchased the house in 1994. 1 can be contacted at (970) 674-8776 to verify this if
necessary.
Dumais continued that when she moved in, this house was pretty much in shambles: She has two
dogs and wanted some protection and cover for them, since there is only one small aspen tree in
the back. Dumais removed all the old wood and added a shingle roof. Because she did not
change the structure at all, and all the beams were original', she thought she did not need a
building permit based on earlier information she had received. She received a letter from the city
in December stating that she needed to get a building permit. When Dumais applied for the permit,
she was told that she needed a zoning variance. Mike Gebo went out and looked at the patio
cover and told her that if she could get the variance, he would issue the permit. She stated she
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 6
would really like.to get the variance because it would be.a hardship from the standpoint of having
shelter for her dogs and from a financial standpoint if she had to tear it down and start over. Hall
asked if it is her intent to leave it open as shown. Applicant answered yes other than she will add
landscaping.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bello -stated in light of the properties to the south and the setbacks that are required and this being
around since 1994, it seems like a reasonable request. In terms of the justification, it's probably
inconsequential but it's not a hardship or equal to or better; so would think it's just inconsequential.
Hall stated that he thinks the 25 years it's -existed lends itself to being inconsequential in that we're
not going to change anything, but he thought there was an element of equal to or, better than in
that the 5 foot setback from the sidewalk effectively makes it 20 feet away. He thinks the intent of
the code is met and they've talked about that before on corner lots where that situation exists.
Bello made a motion to approve Appeal number 2639 for the following reasons: 1) Granting
of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, 2) The proposal as presented
will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considering the context of the neighborhood (The neighborhood
setbacks for the properties to the south) and will continue to advance the purposes of the
Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. and 3) The structure has been.in place for at
least 25 years and the setback from the street is over 20 feet (21.5 ft) which is in line and
consistent with the requirements of the houses to the south. Shands seconded the motion.
The motion was approved.
Votes:
Yeas: Dickson, McBride, Hall; Shands, Bello
Nays:
Abstain:
5. APPEAL NO. 2640 — Approved with Condition
Address: 949 E. Prospect Rd.
Petitioner: Pamela Dunlap
Zone: NC
Section: 3.8.7(E)(4)
Background: The variance will allow the existing Shell freestanding sign to,remain at its current
overall height of 11.5 ft. instead of being lowered to the required 5' height,. and allow it.to remain a
freestanding pole sign instead of being converted into a monument sign as required for signs in the
residential neighborhood.sign district. The existing sign is 25 sq. ft. per side, and the code would
allow a.sign.of up to 32 sq..ft. per, side, so the size is in compliance., The petitioner believes that
lowering the sign and converting it into a monument sign: at its current location wilt create a site
obstruction; and moving it further back to remedy the site obstruction will result in the sign being in
the middle of the driveway
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Converting the sign into a monument sign will create a
possible site obstruction issue at this busy intersection, for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
ZBA February 12, 2009 —Page 7
Converting it to a monument sign and moving it back will remedy the site obstruction issue, but
would end up placing the sign in the middle of the driveway and obstruct the interior vehicular
circulation on the site. The size of the sign is smaller than what is allowed, so the size is in
compliance. Leaving it as a pole sign and at the existing height provides the necessary air space
under the sign cabinet for vehicles and pedestrians to see and be seen.
Peter Barnes received a letter dated February 6, 2009, from Jim Endicott, owner of Flowerama
located at 1517 S. Lemay: In reference.to your letter dated 02/02/2009 concerning the code
variance for the property located at 949 E. Prospect, I support the request of allowing the sign to
remain a freestanding pole as it now exists. Thank you for allowing my input.
Staff Comments: The existing site layout with curb cuts very close to the intersection makes it
difficult to move the sign further back. Doing so would create an unsafe vehicular circulation
pattern on the lot. If the Board considers approving the variance, a condition should be placed on
the approval that the sign cannot be increased in size.
Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that this property at the corner of Prospect and Lemay is in the
residential neighborhood sign district, which requires all signs not attached to the building to be of
a monument structure style. In other words, pole signs (a pole with a cabinet on top of it) is not
allowed. Barnes presented slides relevant to the request and pointed out the various businesses
at the intersection. For this type of land use the maximum height for a monument sign is 5 feet; the
maximum size is 32 sq. ft. per side. The pole sign in question complies with the sign code for pole
signs (setback from property line, height and size.of the sign) if pole signs were allowed in this
area. So the issues are that the applicant is requesting to leave the sign as is, a pole sign as
opposed to a monument sign, and allow the sign to be 11-1/2 feet tall instead of 5 feet. The site is
quite congested. If the sign is lowered to a monument sign: at this location, it would be in the site
distance triangle, which means it would be a site obstruction. To put a monument sign at this
location would require moving the sign 4 feet to the west and 2 feet to the south; therefore you
could not put a monument sign at this location. Moving it 4 feet would definitely put it in the
vehicular pattern of the trucks and tankers; tow trucks and clients using this gas pumps. So the
request is to leave this sign as is. Again a pole sign can be up to 32 sq. ft. per side; this sign is 25
sq. ft. Barnes recommends that if the board considers granting this variance, it might also want to
talk about a condition on the variance that the sign cannot be any larger than it currently is.
Bello asked if this was previously a Texaco station and was the Texaco sign there at the same
place. Barnes replied he thought so.
Applicant's Presentation: Pamela Dunlap, 3813 Ideal Dr. '
Dunlap stated that the original sign was further out on a cement pad. To be in compliance they
moved the sign back. When Texaco went out they changed it.to Shell.
Bello asked if another option would be to put the sign on the building and said that would be the
only other option they'd have in terms of the site layout. He asked if they could have building
signage. Barnes replied that in the neighborhood residential sign district,.there can.be one sign
per wall not to exceed 12 inches in height. It's pretty restrictive as far as wall signage and is very
difficult to see. The applicant added that there would also be restrictions from Shell as to what they
could do and they would not be able to post a price which she thinks is a requirement of Shell.
Dickson noted that on the corner of Prospect and College, there's Schrader's Oil, and they have
two free standing or monument signs rather than one at the corner. They're located on the
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 8
perimeter on Prospect to the west and then one on College to the south. Is that a potential for the
subject property. Barnes answered the problem is there are too many curb cuts.
Hall asked if it is in a residential area. Barnes answered it's in the residential neighborhood sign
district. Hall replied it does not have a very residential feel to it. Barnes said that once you get to
the south of this property, he believes it is residential. The applicant clarified which properties to
the south are residential. Barnes said this area in close vicinity to the sign is very congested with
vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic with school kids. Applicant said that is one of their biggest
concerns. If there were a monument sign there, the kids coming down from the junior high on the
south side would not see vehicles turning the corner. They also have people coming down from
the nursing home at the top of the hill and crossing in their carts; they would also not be visible
because of the height if we put a sign on the ground there. Also, it would be a very big target
because people back into that sign all the time when negotiating the tight lot. You can see that the
sign pole is scarred and bent.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion
Dickson asked if there is a requirement that the sidewalk be there or is there a sidewalk there that
she doesn't see. Barnes,said there is a sidewalk; there is asphalt in some places..
Hall said if a noncompliant monument sign was out there on the corner, it would create an
undesirable situation and would not make things better. There doesn't seem to be any practical
way to move that sign. Bello commented that they did a good job in the photographs showing what
it would look like, and it really would be an obstruction
Dickson stated it does seem like a hardship and could the board justify it that way. The board
discussed that it could be equal to or better in that changing it would make the situation worse.
Hall said the residential neighborhood sign district location made it hard to comply and he thought
keeping the sign at same size, 25 sq. ft. would be the best approach, as suggested by Barnes. It
would be this sign for this business and if it were sold to a low -traffic business I think it would need
to be reviewed at that point.
Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2640. for the following reasons: 1) The
granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public good, 2) it is equal to or better
than the required solution of making it into a monument sign for the residential
neighborhood sign district because that would obstruct visibility and could be detrimental
to the public good, and 3) leaving the sign where it is now is the least dangerous solution
for visibility and traffic flow within the property. A condition for the approval is that the sign
not be made any larger than it, is and it.would be specific to this business. Hall seconded
the motion. The motion was approved.
Votes:
Yeas: Shands, Bello, Dickson, McBride, Hall
Nays:
Abstain:
Other Business
Barnes reminded the board that we will have the election of officers for the next 12 months at the
March meeting.
ZBA February 12, 2009 — Page 9
Barnes also advised the board that the City's budget process for the next two years will begin very
soon. The City Manager's office is extending an invitation for boards and commissions to be
involved in the budget process. There will be a budget retreat in a couple of months, and the
Boards are invited to attend. If board members have items related to what we do that should be in
included, let him know.
Hall advised that he will not be at the March meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
Dwight Hall, Chairpersdn Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator