Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/10/2020 Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221 -6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the August 13, 2020 Minutes. The motion was passed , with LaMastra and Shields abstaining. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200031 – APPROVED Address: 201 S. College Ave Owner: Fort Collins Museum of Art Petitioner: Marie Hashaw Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (G) (2) Project Description: This is a request to remodel an existing freestanding sign to exceed the height limit of 7 feet by an additional 4 feet 7 ½ inches when setback 0 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is 11 feet 7 ½ inches from the street flowline (10 feet 7 ½ inches visual height). Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request , noting we have seen this applicant ion previously. This time the applicant has chosen to restructure the existing freestanding sign, instead of adding an additional sign. The sign will be made taller and the addition to the sign is at the top. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Boa rd of Appeals Page 2 September 10, 2020 Applicant Presentation: Marie Hashaw, addressed the board. The public does not realize the Museum of Art is in this building. By making the changes, t hey are hoping this sign will help advertise their location. They still stay within square footage of the sign, the only variance is in sign height, they are still in harmony with the sign code. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the logo is duplicated above and below the arched line. Ms. Hashaw explained the ones underneath are changeable faces if another tenant would need to be represented on the sign in the future. LaMastra asked if there are 7 tenant spaces, Ms. Hashaw cannot confirm. Boardmember Meyer stated about 15 yrs ago he worked on the 2 nd floor of this building, the office spaces are flexible, there may be more tenants added. It makes sense to him t hat there would be a permanent logo for the museum on top with flexibility for other tenan ts. Ms. Hashaw commented that there is room for 4 more tenant panels. Boardmember Lawton noted he thought the bottom blank portion would be used to communicate the c urrent exhibit, Ms. Hashaw confirmed the same. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the top will be halo lighting, how will the rest be lit? Ms. Hashaw stated there will be down lights under the red arch illuminating the tenant panels beneath. Boardmember Meyer asked about the height of the existing sign? Beals believes it’s over 7 height. Confirmed with Ms. Hashaw that the arch will be in the same place on the current sign, they can guess it’s just the top portion being added. Chair Shields confirmed the sign is not moving. Audience Participation: Kathryn Dubiel, of District 2, area code 80525, addressed the board. From a pedestrian perspective, the added height to the sign is a detraction and she does not favor this appeal. Boardmember Meyer repeated his comment, ability to add more tenants because spaces can be divided. It’s important that the sign has the ability to add for additional tenants. Ms. Dubiel stated this is a detrimental change from a pedestrian perspective. The museum already has signage up so people know they are there. Lisa Hatchadoorian, 516 Skyline Dr,(Executive Director of Museum) addressed the board. Much of their attendance is from people walking by. The building itself is beautiful but is not inviting and it is not apparent that there is a museum located there. After the last hearing, they worked to redesign the current sign. With the current variation they want to promote their logo and identify the museum as the main tenant of the building. She can work to get the number of tenants to Beals today if that’s helpful. Chair Shields ask ed Ms. Hatchadoorian asked which piece of the sign is the main identifier. David Kruger, 3931 Benthaven St, addressed the board. He used to work at the Armstrong Hotel ½ block away from the museum. Currently there is not a lot of visual draw to the museu m, he would try to get hotel guests to find the museum, it was hard for people to find. He sees this as a good addition to getting more foot traffic. Boardmember McCoy asked whether the museum was just a tenant in the building. Ms Hashaw confirmed that the museum of art is the co -owner. Vice Chair LaMastra still struggling with the existing sign picture. Doesn’t understand why the “Museum of Art” panel is below the second MOA panel. If the MOA panel is replaced for another tenant, she would think that the M useum of Art information should be right below it. Ms. Hatchadoorian replied that she thought the 2 nd MOA panel is permanent. LaMastra would like clarification since we are adding height. She sees this as redundant if the bottom portion is permanent. Board member Stockover doesn’t recall any sign hearings where we get into verbiage on the interchangeable tenant portion. The permanent portion of the sign is the backlit MOA, the arch and a placeholder for tenants. Doesn’t believe the code can dictate the desig n of signage. Beals confirmed the variance is only regarding the height of the sign, not the names on the directory. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the case is not being made for why they need more height if the MOA signage is listed twice and the bottom port ion is permanent. Zoning Boa rd of Appeals Page 3 September 10, 2020 Boardmember Meyer stated there could be up to 15 tenants in this building, per the drawing, everything below the arch can be interchangeable. The fact that this graphic happens to represent MOA 2-3 times doesn’t bother him. Vice Chair LaMastra would like clarification if the panels below the arch can be traded out. Ms. Hatchadoorian explained they could flip the panels and put the Museum of Art right under the MOA and get rid of the second MOA panel. LaMastra agreed that this would make i t more clear. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover…there are many signs in the past, this board has never mandated control over the verbiage. They can control digital and lighting. This variance accomplishes what the tenant wants, this is much better design than the previous variance and this is nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Lawton is not in support. The statement of intent was more visibility for the MOA, not more signage for more tenants. They could accomplish that with the height of the current sign. He does not understand the double/triple mention of MOA. He does have concerns about the signage downtown. Boardmember Shuff appreciates the building, it’s not obvious this is a museum. They are asking for a bigger sign, how they allocate that signage is up to them. Boardmember McCoy cannot support this. He’s an owner of a multi -tenant building, all of his tenants would like more signage. This applicant can do what is needed within sign code. Vice Chair LaMastra is not trying to get into the weeds regarding how tenant space is allocated. However, it appears without the additional 1ft 7 inches, there is still plenty of height to accomplish all tenant advertising. It’s difficult to see the hardship. There is so much duplicative information, it has become overwhelming on the new sign. Boardmember Meyer sees the hardship of this circumstance and he will be in support. Chair Shields will be in support of this variance, there is an issue finding this amenity for our city. This is nominal and inconsequential. Vice Chair LaMastra would be more on board if the MOA logo was not allowed to be duplicated on the top and on the tenant space. Beals stated the condition could be not specific to MOA, but mention whatever logo is on top cannot be repeated below. Boardmember Stockover stated marketing is about repetition , but does not believe this was the applicant’s intent. The top logo is more artistic and the logo below is more explanation. Can’t support a motion where we dictate the verbiage, that is outside our purview. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA200031 for the following reasons: The variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Total square footage is 19 sq footage less than allowed, total width is 3 feet we will be and adding 1 ft 7 inches and ¾ to the sign that is existing. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, Shields, and Stockover . Nays: Lawton, LaMastra and McCoy. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 2. APPEAL ZBA200032 – WITHDRAWN **Vice Chair LaMastra and Boardmember Shuff recused from this item** 3. APPEAL ZBA200034 – APPROVED Address: 403 E Pitkin St. Owner: Michael & Carolyn Mitchell Petitioner: Jordan Obermann Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(F)(2)(a)(1) Project Description: Zoning Boa rd of Appeals Page 4 September 10, 2020 This is a request to allow a third story. The maximum allowed is two stories. The existing building has an unfinished attic space. A third story is created by finishing 1,064 square feet of the attic cre ating a new floor area. Only approximately 677 square feet is usable space. No exterior modifications are proposed to the home. This additional floor area does not cause the lot to exceed either the overall floor area maximums or the rear floor area maxi mums . Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, notin g the property is a corner property and that the structure was built prior to any land use code standards. There are no exterior alterations. All alterations are interior. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Jordan Obermann and Alex Henze, 116 N College Ave Ste 5, addressed the board. Without having to make any exterior modifications, this meets all of the zoning stipulations. Building changes will be addressed within the building code. Audience Participation: Kathryn Dubiel, District 2, 80525 addressed the board. Wanted confirmation on whether the increase in the floor space of the residential structu re is allowed. Beals confirmed t hey are still under the allowable floor area. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover thinks this is an easy request, this building has been around for a long time, he will be in support. Boardmember Lawton, Boardmember M cCoy, Boardmember Meyer and Chair Shields will be in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200034 for the following reasons: The variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The additional floor area does not exceed the maximum allowed. There are no exterior alterations to the existing structure. The finished attic will have limited ceiling height and does not include a kitchen Yeas: Lawton McCoy, Shields, Lawton and Stockover . Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. *The board took a 10 minute break* 4. APPEAL ZBA200036 – APPROVED Address: 405 N. Whitcomb St. Owner/Petitioner: Ginny Sawyer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (E)(4) Project Description: This a request to build a new accessory building encroaching 1.5 feet into the required 5-foot setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, notin g they want to replace the current structure with a new structure. Both appear to be over the property line . Building does meet the allowable square footage. Space will be a ctive space and won’t be used to store a car. Screened porch is set back even further from the setback. Fence line is not accurate to property line. The alley behind does not go all the way through. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the property line has been surveyed or how do we know these measurements are accurate. Beals did reply the review is based on the the site plan submitted by the applicant and their contractor. Applicant Presentation: Zoning Boa rd of Appeals Page 5 September 10, 2020 Ginny Sawyer, 405 N. Whitcomb St ., addressed the board. The house itself is about 4 feet from the fence line as well. It has not been surveyed, she’s been in the house close to 20 years and none of the neighbors have done any surveying to her knowledge either. N eighbor did sign a letter of support. There is not a lot of use in the alley. Chair Shields asked about the measurements, Ms. Sawyer confirmed they measured from the fence line. Vice Chair LaMastra stated if they measure from the fence, if the fence is n ot accurately placed, they could be allowing the building to be even further into the setback. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this one is easy for him. Surveys on these properties often reflect a ripple effect. The board has seen this before, he doesn’t like the lost space between a building and a fence. He will be in support. Boardmember Lawton believes this is an improvement from the previous building. They will also use some space (South portion) as parking to get a vehicle off the street. Boardmember Shuff is in support. Ideally it would be in line with the house. He does have some concern with not knowing where the property line is located. Chair Shields asked if the building permit will require an ILC . Beals stated this would not, only if the new building was a single family house. Boardmember McCoy is in support. Vice Chair LaMastra stated this is an exceptionally narrow lot, she will be in support of making as much usable space as possible. Comment that she finds it interesting that an ILC is not mandatory, she was recently recommended to have one. Beals confirmed that they recommend ILC’s but do not required by code. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the neighboring lot to the north received an ILC and the building is not placed properly, what could happen? Beals explained we issue a permit based on the site plan provided by the applicant. It would be on the applicant to bring into code. Boardmember Meyer agreed this is an improvement and is not de trimental to anyone. It does seem like there is a disconnect if the property owner doesn’t know where their property line is located. Chair Shields agreed with other boardmembers, he’s ok with the setback. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200036 for the following reasons: The variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The new accessory building is less of an encroachment from the existing structure.The accessory structure does not exceed the allowable floor area.The eave height along the north property is 8ft in height. The eave includes a gutter system along the north side. Yeas: Lawton, LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Shuff, Meyer and Stockover . Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 5. APPEAL ZBA200037 – APPROVED Address: 3931 Benthaven St. Owner/Petitioner: David Kruger Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) & (5) Project Description: This a request to allow a fence varying in height between 6 feet and 6 feet 7 inches to remain in place. The current location encro aches 2 feet into the required 2-foot setback from the sidewalk, and the allowed maximum height of the fence is 6 feet . Staff Presentation: Zoning Boa rd of Appeals Page 6 September 10, 2020 Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting current standards indicate a f ence be setback 2 feet from the sidewalk and /or placed on private property. If this board would grant approval, the City Engineering Department also requires an encroachment permit. They are also reviewing this appeal. The overheight of the fence is not al ong the whole fence, but a result of the grade change. The existing fence is very similar to the neighbor minus the trellis. The staff report suggested a condition but is no longer needed because Engineering will require an encroachment permit. Applicant Presentation: David Kruger, 3931 Benthaven St., addressed the board. The fence broke in a storm, and they rebuilt in a hurry, they used all of the previous boards and added the topper because their backyard is raised. They did not realize the fence was ov er 6 feet until they received the letter from the City. Audience Participation: Beals read a letter received this morning from Abdon W. (Bill) Padilla stating the contractor that helped build the fence should have known about the code and advised the app licant appropriately and asked if the lattice top was removed if the fence would be in compliance. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover would be in support of a new fence, the setback doesn’t bother him. The lattice work is pleasant to the eye, and it’s well done, he will be in support. Boardmember Lawton Boardmember Shuff stated this happens often that people don’t realize what’s happening. Since there is another fence in the same condition, it makes it less of an issue for him. Doesn’t appear to be any sight issues. ViceChair LaMastra doesn’t have any issue s but agreed a fence contractor should know the code for fencing. Boardmember Meyer and Chair Shields are both in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200037 for the following reasons: The variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The fence height and grade are varied. The sidewalk is more than 3.5ft in width. The fence does not run the entire length of the property. The top 1ft in fence height is transparent. Yeas: Lawton, LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Shuff, Meyer and Stockover . Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 6. APPEAL ZBA200038 – APPROVED Address: 1640 Remington St. Owner: Nathanial Warning Petitioner: Lacey Gaechter Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building (shed) encroaching 2 feet into the required 5 -foot side-yard setback and encroaching 5 feet into the required 8-foot rear-yard setback . Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and disc ussed the variance request, noting the shed would be behind the garage and is within the allowable height and floor area. There is landscaping present to shield visibility from the front of the property. Boardmember Lawton asked about the visual and what t he circles represent, they will ask the applicant. Zoning Boa rd of Appeals Page 7 September 10, 2020 Applicant Presentation: Lacey Gaechter,1640 Remington St, addressed the board. Aesthetically this will have very little impact on the neighborhood. Spoke with the neighbor to the north they are in support. The circles on the visual are trees. The property line was just lined out due to street work, they do believe the fence is located appropriately. In the letter from the Board, they are unclear as to what the setbacks are. They were given two different setbacks. Beals clarified the setbacks are 8 feet for the L-M-N zone. Vice Chair LaMastra asked for clarification on the drawings pr ovided. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton noted there are limitations to this lot size, He will be in support. Boardmember Shuff commented the corner subdivided lot has a lot of constraints . On a new project it would be a large ask, but in this context, this would be acceptable. Especially since the shed will be blocked by the foliage and house. His assumption is t he fence is pretty close to the property line. Boardmember McCoy is in support. Vice Chair LaMastra is also in support, just prefers clarification on lot lines. It’s difficult when rear yard setbacks are next to side yard setbacks, this is a constrained area. She appreciates the conservation of the trees and will be in support. Boardmember Meyer is in support and views this as inconsequential and a hardship. The shed isn’t even being built on a permanent foundation. Chair Shields will be in support as well. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA200038 for the following reasons: The variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 The existing parcel is smaller in size than the other parcels in the subdivision. The location of the house and garage limit the location of a new accessory structure . Yeas: Lawton, LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Shuff, Meyer and Stockover . Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m. Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning