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