No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/13/2003Afinutes approved by the Board at the January 8, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — November 13, 2003 8:30 a.m. II Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: Steve Remington IlPhone: (H) 223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday November 13, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Alison Dickson Robert Donahue David Lingle Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dwight Hall Andy Miscio STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lingle made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 9, 2003, meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed with Donahue abstaining. ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2424A--Approved. Address: 1113 West Olive Street Petitioner: Joe Vansant Zone: NCL Section: 2.10.2(k) Background: The request would allow the original variance that was granted on June 12, 2003, to be extended for an additional 6 months. The original request was to: (1) reduce the required front -yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to the front wall of the home and to 4 feet for the roof overhang over the front door; (2) would reduce the required rear -yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet; (3) would allow the attached garage to be located flush with the front wall of the home instead of being setback 10 feet behind the front wall of the building; (4) would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 3000 square feet, and (5) would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.9 to 1. The variances are necessary in order to allow a new home to be built on this older, 3000 square foot lot. The petitioner was unable to obtain a pen -nit before the original variance expires, and was requesting a six month extension as allowed by the code. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. Staff Comments: Please see the minutes from the June 12, 2003 ZBA meeting. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that the Board considered this variance in June and the Board approved the variance. The Code stipulated that anytime a variance was approved by the Board for which a building permit was required the variance was valid for a period of six months from the date the variance was granted. The variance will expire on December 12, 2003. The Code allows the Board to grant one six month extension, so that the total period would not exceed 12 months. hi June the Appellant thought he would be able to obtain his permit within six months, but that no longer was the case. The appeal was not a rehearing, but a determination as to whether or not the Board would grant an extension. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The lot used to be an old City of Fort Collins substation and was only 3000 square feet, which constituted a sub -standard sized lot. Barnes gave the history of the property. ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 3 Lingle stated that in the Applicant's letter there was a request for a 12 month extension and asked if that had been discussed with the Applicant. Barnes believed that he mentioned it to the Applicant. Remington asked what the intent of the Code was for the Applicant to apply for a building pemvt within six months. Barnes stated due to possible changes in the Code and conditions. Staff did not want the request to be dragged out for five years or so and circumstances may be different. Remington questioned if there had been any code changes or were there any anticipated code changes that might impact the lot. Barnes replied no. Applicant Participation: Joe Vansant addressed the Board. Vansant stated that he did not have any additional continents. He has been busy doing other projects and he has not had a chance to work on this project. Lingle asked Vansant if the six month extension would work for him. Vansant replied yes. Remington asked if Vansant had started the process to obtain the building permit. Vansant said no and replied that he has been working on getting prices. Barnes pointed out that if the variance extension was approved and for some reason Vansant was not able to obtain his permit, Vansant would have to come before the Board for a brand new hearing. Board Discussion: Lingle made a motion to grant appeal 2424-A for a six month extension. Lingle stated that the approval was not detrimental to the public good. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover. Nays: None. 3. APPEAL NO. 2446—Approved. Address: 1907 Rollingwood Drive Petitioner: Joe and Lori Larson Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(C) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 9 feet, 3 inches in order to allow a bedroom addition to the west side of the house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 4 Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B. Staff Comments: The code section dealing with comer lots was changed a couple of years ago because of the large number of variance requests that were necessitated by the previous wording. Under the old code, a variance would not have been required for the proposed addition. The bedroom addition that was planned was rather large, 19' x 26' 4". If the board applied a hardship standard, then the size of the proposed addition should be taken into consideration. The addition can probably be reduced in size to either comply with the code or to require less of a setback variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that a Code change was made regarding comer lots. The front property line in the past, regardless of which way the house faced and what the address was, was defined as the shorter of the two street frontages. The rear property line was the one opposite the front property line, and the other two lot lines functioned as side lot lines. Barnes referred the Board to the site plan that was included in their packet. The house faced Rollingwood Drive and Stonehenge Drive was to the west. The frontage on Stonehenge Drive was 80 feet versus 90 feet of frontage on Rollingwood Drive. Under the old code, the Stonehenge frontage would have been considered the front property line, which meant that the north lot line would have been an interior side lot line with a requirement of a five-foot side -yard setback. Bames stated that due to the numerous requests that the Board had to deal with on comer lots where houses were not always facing the front lot line the Code was changed to eliminate those types of variances. Barnes said that for this variance request the Code had the opposite effect. For this property, the north lot line was considered to be the rear property line where a 15-foot setback was required. The proposed addition would be placed 9 feet from the rear property line Dickson asked if the north lot line was considered an interior side lot line what was the setback requirement. Barnes replied five feet. Lingle stated that in the staff comments Barnes stated that the addition was large and Lingle wondered if the Board had any authority over subjectivity. Barnes replied that over the years the Board has from time to time required that a person downsize their proposed additions so that not so much of a variance was required. Barnes noted what had been done historically. Applicant Participation Joe Larson addressed the Board. Larson addressed the proposed size of the addition. Larson stated that he was unaware that he was going to encounter a variance issue. The house has very little storage due to the lack of a basement. Larson saw it was an opportunity to create some storage space. Larson stated that his proposal has been approved by the Stonehenge Board, an ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 5 architectural review board. Larson explained that the location of the proposed addition was the most logical. Lingle asked Larson what portion of his backyard would still function as a backyard. Larson explained what he used as his backyard. Remington asked if the proposed addition was already under construction. Larson replied that some dirt work had been done. Work has not been done in one and a half months. Board Discussion: Lingle was in favor of the appeal. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2446. Dickson stated the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Dickson based her motion on the equal to or better than standard. The general purpose of the standard was to allow for adequate light, air, and ventilation between properties. Dickson stated that in this case, the rear -yard setback functioned as the side -yard setback with a requirement of five feet. There was actually 9 feet. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2447—Approved. Address: 1003 Remington Street Petitioner: Thomas Laupa Zone: NCB Section: 4.8 (D)(3)(C) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the rear property line from 5 feet to 3 feet in order to allow an 8-foot tall fence. The fence spans 40-feet in length, starting at the southwest corner of the dwelling addressed as 111 East Elizabeth Street, ending at the existing garage to the south. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The purpose was noise abatement because an IHOP restaurant was located to the west of the property. IHOP operates 24-hours a day. An 80-year old cottonwood was removed in 2003 due to disease. The tree previously helped to reduce the noise from the restaurant property. Staff Comments: ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 6 The location of the property near a 24-hour commercial business could be considered to be a unique situation. Staff Presentation: Bares presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the fence ordinance restricted the height of fences to six feet in height. When a fence or wall was over six feet in height it becomes a structure as opposed to a fence or wall. A building permit was required as it was a regulated structure. The fence has to be engineered to withstand the building codes wind load requirements and the drawings have to be stamped by an engineer. The fence was also required to comply with the setbacks that are necessary for the particular zoning district that the property is in. In this case, the rear setback was along the alley and was required to have a setback of five feet. The fence has already been constructed and located three feet from the rear property line along the alley. The property was on the corner of Remington and Elizabeth Street. There was a tree damaged during a snow storm and needed to be removed. Barnes noted that IHOP, as noted by the Applicant, was in use 24 hours a day. Remington asked if the fence met the engineer's standard for wind load. Bares stated that a building pennit has not yet been issued. Barnes did not recall if the Applicant applied for a building permit and therefore was unsure of the status of the building permit. Applicant Participation: Cindy Laupa, 1003 Remington Street, addressed the Board. Laupa stated that the following hardships: (1) the loss of a large cottonwood tree; and (2) loss of the large juniper. Laupa stated that IHOP was a loud and busy restaurant in operation 24-hours a day. Laupa stated the fence was used for noise abatement. Lingle asked the Applicant to explain why an 8 foot fence was used instead of a 6-foot fence. Laupa stated that she and her husband perfonned some studies to show where the noise was coming from. Laupa stated that she was unable to answer the question. Dickson asked Laupa if she owned the property at 111 West Elizabeth Street. Laupa said yes. Board Discussion: Stockover stated he did not have a problem with the appeal because it was not visible from any main street and the area was probably fairly noisy. Stockover was in favor of the appeal. Lingle asked staff if the purpose of regulating a fence over 6 feet was for structural reasons. Barnes replied that the Building Code regulated it from a structural standpoint, although Zoning regulated it because of the light, ventilation, etc. Barnes stated there was a potential impact onto adjacent properties due to the height. Barnes noted that there was an alley adjacent to the fence, so the proposal probably did not have the impact that it could have if the fence was directly abutting another property. ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 7 Lingle stated that he had mixed feelings and aesthetically he did not care for the fence, although he agreed with Stockovei's comments. Remington noted the unique conditions of the property: commercial business, alley provides some space, and loss of mature landscaping. Remington was in support of the appeal. Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2447. Remington stated the approval was not detrimental to the public good. Remington based the approval on the hardship standard. Remington stated the unique situations of the property: (1) 24-hour commercial operation next door to the property; (2) alley next to the property that provided additional space and light; (3) loss of mature landscaping; and (4) the elevated parking lot next door. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2448—Approved with conditions. Address: 4301 Westbrooke Court Petitioner: Todd Spencer Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the south side lot line from five feet to two feet in order to allow the already constructed 9.5' x 15.5' storage shed to remain where it is. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter C. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted the mature landscaping and the pond in the Applicant's backyard. The storage shed was already constructed and there was a tree to the north of the shed. The shed was setback an adequate distance from the rear property line. Barnes said that if the variance was approved the Applicant would have to comply with the Building Code, meaning that all proportions within three feet of the lot line would have to be fire rated. Applicant Participation: ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 8 Todd Spencer addressed the Board. Spencer did not realize he needed a variance for his shed. Spencer stated that it would be difficult to move the shed. Lingle stated that one of the benefits of a required setback was that it allowed adequate room for maintenance and prevented an area from becoming frill of weeds and debris. Lingle asked Spencer if that was enough room to maintain the area behind the shed. Spencer replied that it was for him, but maybe not for someone else. Spencer claimed that he took pride in having a clean yard. Spencer also put down landscape fabric and mulch to prevent weeds from growing. Lingle asked Spencer if he was willing to bring the shed into Code compliance by having to the shed fire rated. Spencer replied yes. Board Discussion: Lingle stated that normally he would take a position against having a minimal setback, but in this case there were mitigating circumstances. One was the location of the tree in front of the shed. Lingle stated that the length of the shed was not such a dimension that would cause the minimal maintenance area to become a problem for the neighbors. Lingle was in favor of the appeal. Remington thought that Spencer would keep the area well maintained, but wondered about another potential homeowner. The Board discussed whether the appeal fit under the equal to or better standard or the hardship standard. Lingle wanted to place a condition on the approval that the shed not be enlarged. Spencer said that he did not know he needed a building permit and received a violation from the Building Department that he was in violation of the zoning ordinance. Spencer has applied for his building permit. The trees were planted 11 years ago. Remington did not want to set a precedent, but thought the location was logical. The Board asked for Eckman's help. Eckman explained the purpose of the standard. Stockover made a motion to approve appeal 2448. Stockover stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Stockover based the approval on the hardship standard and noted that there were exceptional physical conditions such as the mature landscaping. Stockover said that the placement of the shed had minimal impact on the light and open space to the most effected neighbor to the south. Lingle seconded the motion, but wanted to condition the approval that the shed not be enlarged in its current location. Stockover agreed and amended his motion. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover. Nays: Donahue. 6. APPEAL NO. 2449—Approved with conditions. Address: 227 South College Avenue Petitioner: Frank Mercardante Zone: D Section: 3.8.7(D)(5)(a) ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 9 Background: The variance would increase the sign allowance for 227 South College Avenue from 120 square feet to 172 square feet in order to allow the existing window graphic letters and logos with blue background to remain. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter D. Staff Comments: Because of the manner in which the graphics are displayed, the Code required that the entire blue background color be counted as part of the area of the sign. Therefore, the window signage amounts to 66 square feet, which is 52 square feet over the sign allowance. If the sign graphics are removed from the blue background, then the signs are not regulated and do not count against the sign allowance since each individual sign is less than 6 square feet. Therefore, the applicant believes the lettering on the blue background was better than what the code would allow him to do - leaving the blue background, removing the letters, and re -displaying the letters throughout the window, thereby adding more clutter. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted the location of the property and stated Aaron's Sales and Lease Ownership, a new tenant, situated there a couple of months ago. Banes explained the code and said the property had 120 square feet of sign allowance. The Applicant used 106 square feet not including the blue area of 66 square feet. The Sign Code stipulated that the way the sign was measured it would include any portion of the sign that was an integral part of the background display. The blue background was an integral part of the sign display, and therefore the letters and the blue background were counted toward sign allowance. The Applicant was over in sign allowance due to the blue background. The Applicant requested that his sign allowance be increased to 172 square feet. Barnes stated that if the lettering was removed from the background and placed below it would not be regulated because the lettering was non -illuminated and less than six square feet. Lingle proposed the scenario that if the Applicant were to place a blue partition wall on the inside of the building would it be regulated. Lingle used liquor store windows as an example. Barnes replied that if the whole background of the window was blue it would not be a window anymore because it could not be seen through. Barnes said that if the window no longer functioned as a window it probably would not be regulated. Barnes explained the difference between wall and window signs. ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 10 Applicant Participation: Frank Mercardante, 1517 Greenview Drive, addressed the Board. He owned the business at 227 South College Avenue. Mercardante received a zoning violation on October 6, 2003. Mercardante was unaware that his window signs would count as signage. Mercardante has taken down the larger, paper window signs and has an agreement with the Zoning Department to not put those up in the windows. Mercardante brought a sample of the blue window. The blue window was transparent and acted as a sun filter. Mercardante felt if the name brand labels were taken down from the blue area and placed elsewhere that it would look tacky. Mercardante explained that his signs are effective in their current placement. Lingle asked Mercardante if he was a franchisee. Mercardante replied yes. Lingle asked if the signage treatment was a corporate identity. Mercardante stated yes. Lingle asked Mercardante if the blue were not allowed if he would maintain the lettering in its current placement. Mercardante stated it would be difficult. Board Discussion: Lingle asked Bames what if the Applicant was to put blue awnings and the lettering placed on the awning flap would the whole awning be considered a sign. Barnes said that on awnings no more than 25% of the area of the awning can be used for signage, and the maximum allowed signage on awnings was 35 square feet. Each word would be counted as signage. Remington wanted to make sure that if the blue was removed, the 38 square feet of words could exist as they are currently, but in addition the Applicant could put up other window signs as long as they were less than six square feet. Barnes said that was true and explained the window sign ordinance. Stockover stated that economics could not be a factor as presented by the Applicant. Stockover stated that if the appeal were denied a less attractive store front would be likely. Remington stated that if the variance were approved he would like conditions placed on the approval that no other signage be allowed. Lingle felt there were some better alternatives. Dickson asked staff if they would read the section from the Sign Code regarding the incorporation of the background to count as sign allowance. Bames read the Measurement of Signs out of the Sign Code. There was a discussion held regarding proposed conditions. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2449. Remington stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Remington based the approval on the equal to or better than standard. Remington said the general purpose of the standard was to avoid visual clutter and detriment to the appearance of properties in Fort Collins. The following conditions were placed on the approval: (1) that no additional window signage of a commercial nature except incidental and informational signs such as hours of operation, no smoking, and credit card signs; and (2) no window display of merchandise within three feet of the window advertising brand names. Lingle seconded the motion. ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 11 Vote: Yeas: Donaltue, Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2450—Approved with conditions. Address: 1006 Province Road Petitioner: Thomas Washburn Zone: RL Section: 3.5.2(D)(5) Background: The variance would increase the allowed square footage for a detached accessory structure from 800 square feet to 1200 square feet in order to allow the owner to build a 1200 square foot accessory building. Petitioner's Statement ofHardshitr Please see attached Petitioner's Letter E. Staff Comments: The intent of restricting the size of accessory buildings to 800 square feet was to ensure that, in "urban -type" residential zones, the building was of an appropriate size for the typical size lots within Fort Collins. The larger than one acre lot in question was much larger than the average size residential lot, so the proposed 1200 square foot building was inconsequential when considered in relation to the size of the lot. Therefore, the Board may determine that the proposal promotes the purpose of the standard equally well as would a proposal that complies with the standard since the size of the building relative to the size of the lot was equal to an 800 square foot building on an average size residential size lot. Staff Presentation: Banes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that in June the Code was changed to limit the size of detached accessory buildings in most residential zones to 800 square feet. The intent was to keep the accessory building sizes in proportion to the size of the lot. The property was at the comer of Province Road and Lemay Avenue and it was part of the Provincetown overall development plan. The lot was just over one acre. The house has an attached three -car garage. The Applicant submitted exhibits. Exhibit A was other existing Provincetown properties with 1200 square foot outbuildings. Remington asked how the existing properties were able to have 1200 square foot outbuildings. Barnes stated that they were constructed before there was an 800 square foot limit. ZBA November 13, 2003 Page 12 Applicant Participation: Dinette Washburn, 1006 Province Road, addressed the Board. Washburn referred the Board members to the petitioner's letter that was written by her husband. Washburn felt her property was unique in that it was an acre lot. Plans have been submitted to her Homeowner's Association and they were approved. Washburn stated that the proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. The outbuilding was needed for storage. Board Discussion: Dickson stated that the proposal was equal to or better than the code due to the size of the lot. Dickson noted that the proposal would be subordinate to the dwelling. Donahue asked staff if the property could be subdivided in the future. Barnes replied that in the RL zone the minimum lot area requirement was 6000 square feet. It was possible for the lot to be divided into seven lots with seven separate dwelling units. Barnes noted that the property was in a PUD where if a new lot would be created that would potentially increase the approved density a minor amendment would be required to the approved PUD. A minor amendment could not be approved if there was more than a 1% increase in density. Barnes said the potential for subdivision was there if there were more than 100 lots. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2450 based on the equal to or better than standard. Dickson stated that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard was to keep the secondary building of a smaller nature than the primary residence. Dickson remarked that due to the lot size the proposed building was in proportion to the lot size. Dickson placed the condition on the appeal that the property will not be subdivided in the future. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Dickson, and Stockover. Nays: None. S. Other Business There was a discussion held regarding Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) legislation. Eckman presented a memorandum to the Board regarding the issue. Meeting a0umed at 11:07 a.m. Steve AjAinkton, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Petitioner's Letter A September 24, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals 300 La Porte Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado RE: 1113 West Olive St. Variance Dear Board Members, j'I Kt In Icy 2003 this board granted me a six-month variance with the suggestion of an additional six months, which I cavalierly thought I would not need. As it turns out, business considerations and demands have interrupted my personal plans. This past summer's schedule to build on my lot located at 1113 West Olive Street, Fort Collins requires extending. Therefore I am requesting a twelve-month continuance of the variance granted for this purpose. The plans submitted previously and the overall conditions of the project have not changed. The granting of this continuance will be greatly appreciated. For further information or questions please call at 482-6312. Joe Vansant - AIA P.O. Box 98 Fort Collins Colorado 80522 -" d, �1L-16 Petitioner's Letter B October 20, 2003 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From- Joe and Lori Larson 1907 Rollingwood Drive Thank you for giving us the opportunity to apply for a zoning variance on our proposed addition of a master bedroom for our property. The reason why we are asking for this variance is the way our house is situated on our lot. It seems to be the only logical and most economical place to put a bedroom, since it would be located next to the other two bedrooms in the house, thus allowing access to the only bathroom located on the lower level family. We need another bedroom (ours) in our house to accommodate our growing Most of the houses in the Stonehenge area were built with considerably small rooms, including ours. We want to stay in our home and therefore want to make it more livable. We want to incorporate more storage and closet space since we have little storage and no basement. In talking with Gary Lopez in Zoning, up until a couple of years ago, this would not have been a problem. But because of the new zoning laws, what seems like the side of our house is technically the back. Being on a comer lot, the house is positioned strangely to where our side yard seems like our front and back. As far as landscaping, we are fortunate to have two mature pine trees in front of the proposed addition. We would continue to fellow with the existing landscape pattern in our yard. Some examples of existing comer lots in Parkwood and Stonehenge are : 1415 Parkwood, 1912 Welch and 1301 Stuart. These are three properties in our neighborhood which are examples of additions onto the original house and are less than fifteen feet setback from the back of the property. This addition would be an asset to us as well as the Stonehenge neighborhood and we hope you will grant us this variance. Thank you again for this opportunity. Sincerely, Joe and Lori Larson Petitioner's Letter C 10/29/03 Dear Sirs: The objective of thus letter is to explain why I am applying for a variance in the building code regarding the location of the shed I built in my backyard. The obvious reason is because the shed is too close to my south property line. This cover letter will explain why I built this shed and how it fits into the overall design for our yard. I have included two pictures showing the shed and how it matches our home. We have been in our home over I 1 years. The fence you see in the background was designed and built by me when we first moved in. I have also designed our landscaping which I'll explain later in this letter. Over the last couple years I have planned, designed and built our shed. This wasn't a quick project. The purpose of the shed is to store our children's bicycles, our lawnmower and other tools. It has a small loft where I can store camping and garden stuff. I have attempted to be considerate in what I have done in my yard. The fence is a custom white -scalloped shadow box fence that looks the same from both sides (our side and our neighbors side.) I have also asked my immediate neighbors regarding the shed and how it looks. My concern being that it isn't unsightly to them and that it compliment the yard and look like an extension our existing home. The shed was placed in a location where we felt it would most naturally fit. Our yard is lined with trees. On the north side of our backyard we have a dog run (next to the house), a peach tree, an Australian pine tree and six varieties of apple trees. In the northwest comer we have a triangular garden plot. The areas next to the garden plot contain raspberries, with flowers immediately in front of the half fence that separates the garden from the yard. On the west side of our yard we have lilac trees, a plumb tree and an autumn purple ash. In the southwest corner we have a small pond surrounded by a Colorado spruce, a Japanese maple, a flowering plumb and several quaking aspens. The shed is placed where it will eventually be hidden behind the Colorado spruce from the backyard. We have additional trees (lilac and a Marshall Seedless Ash) on the south side of our backyard. I have plans to transplant two climbing rose bushes next to the shed. We have a large patio with an outside fireplace (designed by my wife) with quaking aspens and other shrubs and flowers surrounding it. There are three shade trees positioned in the lawn, surrounded by flowers and cement edging, that will provide shade for the house and patio in the summer. I was surprised to learn of the five-foot space that was required for a shed of its size. I am sorry for not adhering to this specification and would like to request an exception be made in my behalf. If I were able to pull it forward (and I am not) it would hit our shade tree. If I were to slide it down, it would be in front of our pond — neither of which I would find acceptable. Lastly, if I were to reduce the size of the shed and make the roof flat (such that it doesn't exceed eight feet — currently it is 10' 8") I feel that it would not look right. If there are any questions regarding this letter or the shed, please contact me. Sine y, i r� Todd M.Spencer —�-'t /-- Petitioner's Letter SALES & LEASE OWNERSHIP For Lees'! ,�MON�'S h7depeadently Owned and Operated = Smdh (A (1t Avowc fbh Co(6m, CO 80524 (970) 498 S&N Poa (970) 498-880 Gary Lopez: Zoning Inspector Building Permits and Inspection Division 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 Mr. Lopez: OCT ,t P, CRfi i October 28i'', MW Having received a zoning code violation notice from your office, we at Aaron's have carefully considered this window graphic issue and how we could come into compliance with the district D zoning code. Aaron's carefully considered all alternate window graphic and signage options and came to the conclusion that the best solution for all concerned would be for the city of Fort Collins to grant a variance on this issue. We at Aaron's are given to understand that the city of Fort Collins passed the district D Zoning ordinance to maintain and promote the historical appeal of Old Town. Aaron's as a resident business of Old Town, wholeheartedly supports the city's vision and goal in this regard. At Aaron's we have done our utmost to ensure that during the restoration of this site, our storefront design was in accord with the city's wishes for the ambiance and visual uniformity of Old Town. A professional, attractive and therefore consumer desirable shopping district will help to ensure Aaron's fmancial success. It is for reasons IN P 7, E T 14 E B S H I P W I T H NiA-,TAGC SONS- FMA PHILIPS MXL such as the above stated, that Aaron's chose Old Town as the most desirable location for our store in Fort Collins. We love the "Norman Rockwell" look of this district and do not wish to detract from it in OMM To promote this image Aaron's has designed and erected a storefront that is classic and tasteful. Our look, we believe, is entirely in keeping with the spirit behind the city's zoning ordinance. Aaron's wishes nothing more than to foster an ongoing positive relationship with both the city government and our fellow Old Town Business Associates. In keeping with this desire, we have voluntarily removed four signs from our front windows at the cities request, and would happily remove this window graphic, if it would enhance the visual appeal of this district. However removal of our existing window graphic would, we believe, run contrary to the intended nature of the zoning ordinance for district D. The Aaron's Name Brands window graphic in question is over 7' 6" above sidewalk level and takes up less than one quarter of the available window space. This single graphic is only 24 inches in width and runs in a thin strip along the top of our front windows. This economical use of window space allows our storefront to have an open airy appearance, while still performing the necessary function of advertising in store product. Aaron's existing graphic is uniform and streamlined in composition, where as if we were to remove it, the replacement signs available to us would be small, multiple in nature and mismatched. Displaying these sorts of signs would greatly detract from our professional, clean and tasteful storefront image. This type of signage, we are afraid would also repel our desired customer base. We cater to young, up and coming, professionals with families. Quite frankly who wants to shop for their families furniture and electronics in a store whose front windows bring to mind a bar? To combat this negative sign image, Aaron's could go without. any "Name Brand" signage at all. However, if Aaron's were to do without these signs, our business would suffer irrevocable financial loss. Over 57% of our stores sales are of Name Brand electronics, and over 50% of our total sales are to customers who were attracted to our store by our window graphic and it's list of Name Brands. Aaron's, as a company, has two major obstacles to overcome as we try to establish ourselves in Fort Collins. First of all we must compete with already established businesses in this area. Secondly we are an entirely new business and have yet to foster consumer recognition. To establish a customer base, we must garner consumer trust. The only way for us to do this is to offer trusted Name Brand products; therefore our potential customers must know that we carry these products. To remain a solvent business we must advertise these trusted Name Brands and our current window graphic does that with subtlety and taste. Aaron's would ask the city to grant a variance for our single, tasteful window graphic, on the basis that the graphic in question, though not meeting the letter of the district D code, does in fact meet the spirit of the code with aplomb. It is our firm belief that this graphic does enhance, and is in keeping with, .the look of Old Town. At the same time this single graphic fulfills a vital function for our new business. Sincerely: (-- -Fr'ank Mercard to General Manager Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership (970)498-8881 CC: Ray Martinez: Mayor Bill Bertschy: Mayor Pro-tem Eric Hamrick: City Counsel Kurt Kastein: City Counsel David Roy: City Counsel Mary Tharp: City Counsel Karen Weitkunat: City Counsel Ann Hutchison: Chamber of Commerce Better Business Bureau David Short: Downtown Business Association Petitioner's L: te4P (D U Thomas S. Washburn 1006 Province Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 October 30, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals Council Chambers City Hall West 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Committee, I'm submitting this application for a variance based on the recent Land Use Code changes for my home residence at 1006 Province Road, Fort Collins CO, 80525. Upon applying for a building permit for constructing a detached garage, I was informed that the code for my neighborhood (zoned RL) was recently changed which would prevent me from building my garage addition according to the plans I submitted. A one-third reduction in the allowable square footage was incorporated into Article 3 General Development Standards, code 3.5.2D5; only allowing an 800 sq ft. detached accessory building to be constructed. My plans call for a 1200 sq ft. accessory building. I would like to submit the follow facts and arguments in secunng a variance for this building plan. 1. Plans approved by Eagle Tree at Provincetown HOA The proposed plans were submitted and subsequently approved by the Eagle Tree Board of Directors and the Architectural Control Committee for the neighborhood Home Owners Association. (Signed/Approved plans available upon request) 2. Consistent with Other Residence Outbuildings All residences on my street currently have existing detached garages that are 1200 sq ft. in size. These buildings were approved by the HOA and the City of Fort Collins prior to construction based on the previous Land Use Codes. Please refer to Exhibit A (Existing Province Road Properties with 1200 Sq Ft Outbuildings) for digital pictures. 3. Plan Satisfies Intent of Code The code states that the standards are "intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian -oriented streets in residential development". In no way does this proposal infringe on those goals. I would presume that the average residential lot size in the city of Fort Collins is about 10,000 sq ft in size and thus these codes were adopted with that in mind (maximum 800 sq ft accessory building). My property is over one acre in size and thus a detached garage of the proposed size on a lot larger than one acre satisfies the intent of the code. If I calculate a ratio of garage square footage to lot size, the current code would allow about 8 sq ft per 100 sq feet of property. In comparison, based on my plans the ratio would be less than 2 sq feet of garage per 100 sq feet of property, 75% less than the current code maximum. Please see Exhibit B (Subject Property — 1006 Province Road) 4. Plan Not a Detriment to Neighborhood or Aesthetics Because of the very strict covenants, conditions and restrictions currently enforced by the neighborhood homeowners association, this building must meet very strict requirements for appearance and location, such as being constructed of like materials and workmanship as the dwelling. The copies of the elevation drawings submitted with this application are indicative of this requirement. Please refer to Exhibit C (HOA CC&R's -section 10.3 - related to outbuildings) 5. Designated Building Usage Because of the strict homeowner association covenants in place designed to insure the same goals as the Residential Building Standards, homeowners are restricted from storing any non -licensed vehicles or equipment on their property in the open. I intend to use this outbuilding as storage for my recreational vehicle, other recreational equipment; ATVs, motorcycles, boat, as well as additional storage for motor vehicles for a growing family — soon to have 2 teenage drivers. Additionally, a one acre lot size requires lawn and garden maintenance equipment different than that of a 8000 sq foot lot - riding mower, aerator, dump trailers, etc. I also intend to create a workshop area for personal use to engage in various projects and hobby activities. Based on these preceding facts and arguments, I am requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant me a variance to construct this accessory building. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submittD""O'z A Thomas S. Washburn Attachments: Exhibit A — Existing Province Road Properties with 1200 Sq Ft Outbuildings Exhibit B - Subject Property — 1006 Province Road Exhibit C - HOA CC&R's -section 10.3 - related to outbuildings -- Exhibit D — Names and addresses of property owners within 150 ft of bldg site