HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/11/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting - June 11, 1987
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
June 11, 1987, at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Lawton,
Lancaster, Walker, Thede, Barnett.
Boardmembers Absent: Coleman
Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, Brayfield
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of May 14, 1987, Approved as Published
The minutes of the May 14, 1987 regular meeting were unanimously approved.
Appeal #1809. Section 118-81 (F)(1) & (2), 118-95 (A), 118-91 (F), by Dub
Hill for Cityscape, Northeast corner of Seton and Lemay -
Approved with Modification.
---The variance would allow a fence over 4 feet in height to be located
less than 20 feet from the front lot line, and allow a fence over 6
feet in height when located more than 20 feet from the front lot line.
The variance would also allow a ground sign to be more than 42 inches
in height when located within 50 feet of an intersection with a setback
of less than 15 feet, and would allow the groundsign to be 101 square
feet in area instead of the required 35 square feet. The sign is for
the Pine Ridge housing development.
---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter.
---Staff comments: The area of the sign face is actually less than 35
square feet, however, since it is mounted on the fence, the fence
becomes part of the sign. This means that part of the area of the
fence is used to calculate the sign area per the sign code. As stated
in the petitioner's letter, the fence is permitted at the location
shown, but when they put a sign on it, we classify that part of the
fence as a sign, which requires a different setback, that being 15
feet.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the petitioner proposes to enclose
the subdivision with a solid masonry fence which meets the 75' site line
requirement. A 35 sq. ft. sign will be mounted on the fence at the corner,
and because the fence is solid, the code requires that the fence be
considered part of the sign structure. Therefore a variance is needed for
the setback, height, and sign area requirements. Additionally, a variance
7.BA Minutes - Jun 01, 1987 •
Page 2
is requested for the fence to exceed the 6 foot height limitation in some
areas.
Petitioner Eldon Ward, for Cityscape, spoke in favor of the appeal. He
said that an alternative would be to build a separate sign structure in
front of the fence, but this would not be as desirable. The solid masonry
privacy fence was stepped in an attempt to to keep it within the height
limitation, but because of the topography of the area, and the need to keep
the courses of the brick level, there were areas that exceeded the six foot
height limitation. The stepped fence design was based on about a 5%
finish grade, and Mr. Ward felt that it was a quality design that met the
intent of the code, if not the letter of the law.
Boardmember Walker said that there were several other areas around Fort
Collins where the topography was similar to this site, and that he felt
that the Board should be careful about setting a precedent in this
situation.
Boardmember Lawton pointed out that a major portion of the fence height
variance was caused by decorative pillars. He had a problem with granting
the fence height variance for non-structural pillars. Mr. Ward said that
the pillars were placed at every change in level with a subsequent change
in direction and that omitting the pillars would lessen the visual effect.
He pointed out that because the fence is noncombustible, there is not a
problem with fire rating. He pointed out that they would not be able to
build as nice a fence if they were required to conform to the letter of the
law.
Boardmember Walker stated that previously the Board had heard similar cases
where the sign became an integral part of an existing structure, and asked
Mr. Barnes to review similar cases for the Board. Mr. Barnes said that a
variance was granted for the Solar I project to allow a 6 sq. ft. sign to
be mounted on a brick wall built to screen some unsightly mechanical units.
Another situation was when the Board granted a variance to The Healthworks
which allowed part of the logo to extend through the sign and across the
face of the building.
Boardmember Walker felt that mounting the sign was a logical solution to
the problem, but he had a problem with the setback. Boardmember Thede felt
that they were getting into a precedent setting situation, and that the
hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Lawton said that he did not have a
problem with the sign itself, but did have a problem with the height
variance, because of the pillars.
Boardmember Barnett thought that the setback variance for the fence was
reasonable because it was only necessary because of the sign mounted on it.
He did have a problem with the fence height variance, and felt that there
was not enough hardship to justify the variance.
Boardmember Walker pointed out that because of the sign, the fence height
should drop to 4 ft. along Seton. Mr. Ward pointed out that without the
sign, the fence would meet all engineering and landscaping requirements.
He stated further that the land drops below the finish grade of the road at
ZBA Minutes - Jun*l, 1987
Page 3
that corner, and a 4 foot sign would not be visible. The Board discussed
the various issues that were raised by mounting the fence on the wall, and
concluded that there were several design options that did not require a
variance, such as increasing the setback or lowering the fence along Seton.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to deny the fence height variance, and
to grant the variance for the groundsign to be over 35 sq. ft. in area, and
the setback to be closer than 15 ft. with the following conditions: 1) the
groundsign be no taller than 4 feet, 2) the length and area of the sign
conform to the plans submitted to the Board. Boardmember Barnett seconded
the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Thede, Barnett Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1810. Section 118-91 (F), 118-95 (A), by Dub Hill, for Cityscape,
5200 Block of S. Lemay - Approved.
---The variance would allow identification signs for Oakridge Village to
be located at a location other than at the entrance into the project,
and would allow two such signs to be located at one entrance instead of
the one sign allowed by code. The variance would allow the I.D. signs
to be 165 square feet instead of the required 35 square feet. The
variance would also allow the signs to be more than 42 inches in height
within 50 feet of an intersection with a setback of less than 15 feet.
The signs are for the Oakridge Village Development.
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
---Staff Comments: This is similar to Appeal #1809 in many respects.
Additionally, the signs will be located at intersections which are not
considered to be entrances into the particular housing project being
advertised. The streets at which they are to be located are through
streets which are meant to serve other developments also."
Petitioner Eldon Ward stated that the variance request was similar to the
previous appeal in that they proposed to integrate the sign design and the
fence. Mr. Ward also requested a variance to place the sign at a site
other than the entrance into the subdivision. Mr. Ward mentioned that many
other subdivisions had such signs, such as sign for Meadowlark, Four
Seasons, and The Landings.
Boardmember Walker asked why the plan showed two signs on one corner. Mr.
Ward said it was to have consistent treatment on both sides of the street.
Boardmember Thede felt that two signs were excessive. Mr. Ward said that
it designed to treat both sides of the street equally.
Boardmember Walker said that this variance was similar to other heard in
the past, and that it made sense to put an I.D. sign on the major arterial.
Boardmember Lancaster asked if there had ever been problems with several
subdivisions wanting I.D. signs at the same location. Mr. Barnes said no,
but it could possibly happen.
Bob Zakely, representing the Everitt Companies, stated that they owned the
whole 300 acre tract with the exception of one small parcel of land. They
ZBA Minutes - Juntl, 1987 .
Page 4
were trying to differentiate in the best way possible the residential area
from the business area. Mr. Zakely felt that one difference between this
variance and others is that the developer owns the whole tract, so there is
no possibility of several developers wanting to have signs on one corner.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to approve the variance for one sign on
Rule and one sign on Keenland, for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lawton
seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Thede, Barnett, Walker.
Nays: None.
Appeal #1813. Section 118-97 (D), by Mitch Morgan, 140-148 W. Oak, and 151
S. College - Approved with Conditions.
---The variance would allow portable signs to be located in porticos
(vestibule type entrances) in buildings located in Oak Street Place.
The variance was approved on April 10, 1986, with the condition that it
be reviewed after one year.
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The buildings in question contain
numerous interior tenants which don't have street exposure. These
porticos are the only private property available for these tenants to
advertise on. In order for the various tenants to have equal time, the
most desirable type of sign is a portable sign.
---Staff Comments: The Board placed the following conditions on the
variance last year: the signs had to be an easel or kiosk type, 2' x 3'
maximum size, secured to prevent them being knocked over, exit widths
maintained, no more than 2 signs per vestibule, signs be located on
private property only, and the variance be granted for a one year trial
basis. Some of these conditions have not always been adhered to, but
we have not had any complaints or noticed any serious problems. If the
Board decides to grant the variance again, a condition should be placed
on the variance that if a signage program is implemented to allow
exterior advertising of the tenants, the variance would be nullified.
Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the same variance was granted last
year with the condition that it be reviewed after one year. Most of the
conditions put on the variance last year were adhered to, and there have
been no complaints.
Petitioner Mitch Morgan said that lack of exposure for tenants in the
interior of the mall continues to be a problem. He said that they were
working on getting more permanent signage to advertise more of the tenants.
Boardmember Lancaster felt that they should eliminate the vestibule signs
if more permament signage was obtained because the hardship would be
eliminated.
Mr. Barnes stated that one of the conditions put on the variance previously
was that the signs be attached to the building. This has proved to be more
of a hazard than a help and he recommended deleting that condition.
ZBA Minutes - JunOe 1, 1987 •
• Page 5
Boardmember Walker stated that the variance was originally granted because
of the hardship of many shops occupying one large space with inadequate
signage. He felt that when additional permanent signage was installed the
portable signs should be removed.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated with the following conditions: 1) the signs be either easel or
kiosk type signs, a maximum of 2' x 31, 2) the exit widths be maintained,
3) no more than two signs per vestibule, 4) the signs be located on private
property, and 5) the variance be reviewed after one year, 6) the variance
is rescinded when additional permanent signage is installed. Boardmember
Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Thede, Barnett,
Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1814. Section 118-41(E), 118-41(F), by Jim Wingate, 812 Colorado,
Approved with Condition.
---The variance would reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 1 foot,
and the north side setback from 5 feet to 1 foot for a 12 foot x 20
foot detached personal hobby shop in the RL zone.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is only 38 feet from the rear
property line to the house. If the building were moved so the code is
met, it would only be a few feet from the house. If the building were
turned, mature landscaping would need to be removed. This location
makes the most sense aesthetically.
---Staff comments: None.
Petitioner Jim Wingate, 812 Colorado, stated that the structure was built
without a permit, and that he did not know he needed a permit until the
Building Inspection Department issued a stop work order. Mr. Wingate said
that the hobby shop was light frame construction, with a concrete slab
floor, and truss roof. The height of the structure is 8' 10" at the ridge
of the roof. Mr. Wingate said that there was no room to build the shop
anywhere else because there is a mature cherry tree, a garden, and other
structures in the backyard.
Boardmember Barnett asked about the utility easement on the back of the
property. Mr. Wingate stated that there were overhead power lines, and
that there was no dedicated easement on the back of the lot.
Mark Davis, 816 Colorado Street, spoke in favor of the appeal. He felt
that there was no other place to put it in the back yard, and was in favor
of the project.
Chris Hanson, 813 Colorado, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he
had no objections to the shop located where it is.
Boardmembers Thede and Walker felt that the hardship was self-imposed.
Boardmember Walker had a problem with the fact that the shop was located so
close to the lot line. The Board was also concerned with the fact that
7.BA Minutes - Judd, 1987 •
Page 6
there was no utility easement shown on the back of the property, but there
was an overhead line. There could be problems in the future if Light &
Power decided to locate the lines underground.
Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance for lack of a
hardship. There was no second. Boardmember Barnett stated that there was
a legitimate hardship due to the size of the back yard and existing
landscaping. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance
with the condition that the building be set back 3 feet from both the north
and east property lines. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas:
Lawton, Lancaster, Barnett, Walker. Nays: Thede.
Appeal #1815. Section 118-44 (D), 118-82 (B)(1), by Tom Dougherty, 1201
University Avenue - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet
to 12 feet, and allow a roof overhang to extend into the required front
setback 3 1/2 feet instead of 2 feet. The variance is for an addition
to the Columbine Cablevision office located in the RH zone.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
---Staff Comments: None"
Petitioner Tom Dougherty spoke in favor of the variance. He stated they
wished to add on to the existing Columbine Cablevision office building, and
wished to maintain the architectural style. Because the lot line curved,
part of the proposed project would not meet the setback requirements. Only
about 25 square feet of the addition is affected. One alternative that
would not require a variance would be to reduce the overhang projection and
detach the wing wall, which would be taking advantage of loopholes rather
than doing it right.
The Board felt that it was a legitimate hardhship caused by the irregular
shape of the lot due to the curvature of the street. Boardmember Lawton
made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember
Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Theded Barnett,
Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1816. Section 118-41 (C), by Art Gallegos, 205 N. Taft Hill Road -
Denied.
---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 50
feet for an undeveloped lot in the RL zone.
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The owner wishes to plat a
currently unplatted parcel into two separate lots. The only way the 60
foot lot width can be met is by making both lots flag shaped, which is
not as desirable as two rectangular shaped lots. The lot was parceled
off into two parcels in 1952, both with less than 60 feet of lot width.
ZBA Minutes - Jun *1, 1987 •
Page 7
---Staff Comments: These comments apply to Appeal 1816 and 1817. As
stated above, two legal lots could be created by making flag shaped
lots. The code would also allow two houses to be built on one large
combined lot covered by the two appeals without a variance. So there
are alternatives available which would allow two houses without a
variance, therefore approving or denying the variance would have no
effect on the possible density of the property.
The petitioner was not present at the meeting, and there was some
discussion as to whether the Board should table the appeal. The Board
decided that proper notification was made to the petitioner, and that
because there were several citizens present to speak about the variance,
that it would be heard. Appeals #1816 and #1817 were considered together
for the purposes of discussion, and voted on separately.
Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed variance and stated that the property
owner had several options other than the one requested for in the variance.
Without a variance, Mr. Gallegos would be able to subdivide the parcel into
one lot, and then could build two houses on the lot. Another option would
be to divide the lot into two flag shaped lots, and build a house on each
lot.
Bruce Dewsberry, 225 N. Taft Hill Road, spoke in opposition to the appeal
stating that the parcel was too small to be divided into two lots. Other
lots in the neighborhood were large, and the small lots would not be in
character with the neighborhood.
Dorothy Cole, 203 N. Taft Hill, spoke in opposition to the variance,
stating that she agreed that the lot was too small for two houses. She
added that all the neighboring lots are at least 60 - 70 feet wide, and
most are 150 feet deep.
Boardmember Lawton stated that typically when this type of variance is
applied for, the lots are existing. This is not the case with this
variance, and there are other options for subdividing.
Boardmember Barnett felt that 40' was not wide enough to build a house, and
subdividing into two 45' wide lots wouldn't be much better. Boardmember
Walker said that there are other solutions to the problem that would not
require a variance, which would make better use of the land.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to deny the variance for lack of a
hardship. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton,
Lancaster, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1817. Section 118-41 (C), by Art Gallegos, 207 N. Taft Hill Road
---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 40
feet for an undeveloped lot in the RL zone.
ZBA Minutes - Jun *l, 1987 •
Page 8
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See Appeal #1816
---Staff Comments: See Appeal #1816
For discussion of Appeal #1817, see preceeding discussion of Appeal #1816.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to deny Appeal #1817 for lack of a
hardship. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton,
Lancaster, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1818. Section 118-41 (E), 118-43 (F), by Ron Linkenheil, 630
Peterson - Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 10 feet and the required side yard setback along the north lot line
from 5 feet to 3 feet for a detached garage in the RM zone.
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The owner is going to remove the
existing garage because it is very dilapidated, and he wants to build a
new garage. The new garage will be partly located on an existing
garden and the owner would like to reduce the rear setback to avoid
using any more of the garden. The side yard reduction is requested in
order to preserve mature landscaping. The new garage will be further
from the side lot line than the existing one is.
---Staff Comments: In this part of town, many of the existing detached
garages are located closer than 15 feet from the alley because when
most of them were built, the Code did not require setbacks for detached
accessory buildings."
Jan Shepard spoke, representing Petitioner Ron Linkenheil. The garage will
replace the old one which has been demolished. The garage would be 20' x
20', and be setback 10' from the rear yard, and 3' from the sideyard, which
is a larger setback than the old garage had. Mr. Linkenheil needs the
larger garage for additional storage, and needs the setback variance to
save existing garden space and mature landscaping.
Boardmember Lawton stated that the new garage would be an improvement to
the lot. Boardmember Barnett stated that the narrow lot and mature
landscaping was a legitimate hardship, and a 3' sideyard setback was
reasonable for the narrow lot.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster,
Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1819. Section 118-81 (D)(2)(a), by Carlyle Tippetts, 430 Canyon -
Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot parking lot setback
along Mulberry to 4.3 feet, and reduce the required parking lot setback
ZBA Minutes - Juno,, 1987 •
Page 9
along Canyon from 10 feet to 3.5 feet at one point for an insurance
office/emissions testing use in the BG zone.
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is an existing building on an
irregular, small lot. The previous use was a gas station, which is now
abandoned. The proposed use is a change of use which requires
compliance with the parking code and landscaping. The required setback
is supposed to be measured from behind the sidewalk, but if the
setbacks were met on this lot, there would be no room for parking. The
petitioner will landscape a large area at the corner as well as the
area between the sidewalk and the curb. A similar variance was
approved on November 13, 1986, but has since expired. See Petitioners
letter for additional comments.
---Staff Comments: Because the building is existing and the lot is
triangular shaped, it would be difficult to provide parking if the
landscaping were placed on the inside of the walk. The proposed plan is
a big improvement over the existing situation."
Zoning Administrator Barnes said that this was similar to the variance
granted for the property in November 1986, with the exception of a second
curb cut on Mulberry. The City Traffic Engineer approved the second curb
cut because a light will be installed on the corner of Mulberry and Canyon.
Petitioner Carlyle Tippetts spoke in favor of the variance, stating that
the primary use of the business would be for his insurance business, and
that he would lease a portion of building to an emissions testing business.
The lease for the second business would be for one year only to see if the
businesses were compatible. Mr. Tippetts referred to the parking lot plan,
explaining that the larger space was to allow room for clients with larger
vehicles such as motor homes or club cab pick-ups.
Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton,
Lancaster, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1820. Section 118-91 (A), by Dan Keating, 2831 Eastborough Drive -
Approved with Conditions.
---The variance would allow two signs which exceed two square feet per
face to be located on a single family dwelling lot. Specifically, the
variance would allow one 32 square foot sign and one 48 square foot
sign on the lot to advertise a "United Way Home Silent Auction",
wherein the proceeds from the house which is under construction will go
to United Way.
---Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a charitable, non-profit
project where all the proceeds go to United Way. Advertising is very
important to the success of the project, and a 2 square foot sign would
be a hardship to United Way because they won't get the advertising they
need. The sign is only temporary until the house is finished and sold.
7,BA Minutes - June*l, 1987 •
Page 10
---Staff Comments: If the Board decides to grant the variance, perhaps a
time limit would be appropriate."
Petitioner Dan Keating, for American Sign Co., spoke in favor of the
appeal, stating the signs were needed to advertise a United Way project.
The house is being built on donated money and labor, and will be auctioned
off with the proceeds going to United Way. Mr. Keating felt that signs
were the best form of advertising, and were necessary for the success of
the project. He felt that the signs would need to be up for about a year
because construction was going slower because of the fact that the house is
being built on donated materials and labor.
Boardmember Lawton pointed out that the home was listed on the market by
The Group so that people also could find out about the house from the
listing.
Boardmember Barnett was concerned about the length of time that the signs
would be allowed to remain up because of the indefinite construction
schedule. He suggested that the signs be allowed to go up for a specified
period of time before that auction and be allowed to remain up through the
auction.
Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to grant a variance to allow the signs
with the condition that they go up no more than six months before the
auction and be taken down as soon as the house is sold. Boardmember
Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton, Lancaster, Thede, Barnett,
Walker. Nays: None.
Appeal #1821. Section 118-81 (D)(2)(a), by Don Wedum, 2005 S. College -
Approved.
---The variance would reduce the required 5 foot parking lot landscape
setback along the south lot line to 0 feet for a retail store in the HB
zone.
Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot and building are existing.
The use is going to change from a laundromat to a retail store so the
parking code has to be complied with. In order to provide an adequate
amount of parking it is not feasible to put in landscaping along the
south lot line because parking would be lost since the building can't
be moved.
---Staff Comments: The Board considered a similar variance for this
property on April ,9, 1987 and denied the request because the question
of providing curbing along the street had not been resolved with the
City Traffic Engineer. The petitioner is now reapplying with a
different site plan which meets with the Traffic Engineer's approval.
Petitioner Don Wedum spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the parking
area is 39' wide on the south side of the building, and making a 5'
landscaping strip would make the parking spaces too narrow. Mr. Barnes
pointed out that there was no room to narrow the spaces down because the
ZBA Minutes - Junlel, 1987
Page 11
space next to the building needs to be wide enough to allow room to open a
car door.
The Board asked about the space on the south side of the building. Mr.
Wedum stated that the tenant planned to place a pre-fab freezer in that
space for storing beef.
Mr. Barnes stated that he spoke to the City Arborist about the proposed
plan, and he would be working with Mr. Wedum in terms of landscaping
requirements.
Boardmember Lancaster felt that it was a good plan, and that it acommodated
as much landscaping as would fit on the lot. It was a good solution to a
difficult lot.
Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship
stated. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Lawton,
Lancaster, Thede, Barnett, Walker. Nays: None.
&
Peter Barnes, Staff Support
Lloyd Walker, Chairman
coM@@ o
urban design, inc.
bldg. 21 suite 242. old town square
April 30, 1987 fort collins,colorado80524
(303) 221-0731
City of Fort Collins
Zoning Board of Appeals
c/o Peter Barnes,
Zoning Administrator
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Board Members;
As a part of the high quality streetscape treatment for Oak
Ridge Estates, [platted as the Pine Ridge Subdivision], an
identity sign is proposed at the Lemay Avenue/Seton Street
entry, It is our understanding that in order to construct the
desired entry treatment, the following variances must be
requested:
1. A variance to allow a sign to be mounted on a structure
more than 42 inches high, within 50 feet of an
intersection, with a setback of less than 15 feet.
The reasons this variance is needed are:
- The signs are proposed as individual brass or bronze
letters applied to a masonry fence. A fence at this
location is perfectly legal, and meets City standards
for corner sight distance.
- This variance would not be needed if the applicant
constructed a free standing, 42 inch high sign
structure immediately in front of the masonry fence.
This additional construction would not only cause an
undue hardship upon the owner, but would also be less
attractive.
- The proposed sign area is less than the 35 square foot
allowed area.
- To set the sign wall back fifteen feet from the street
rights -of -way would take away a large portion of the
affected residential lot, causing an undue hardship on
the home owner.
2. A variance to allow a fence of over four feet in height
when located less than twenty (20) feet from the front lot
line; and to allow a fence of over six feet in height when
located more than twenty (20) feet from the front lot
line.
urban design, inc.
The reasons this variance is needed are:
— Oak Ridge Estates is adjacent to Lemay, an arterial
street projected to carry high levels of traffic in
the future. The property owner desires to provide
visual and acoustic relief to the future home owners.
The proposed treatment comprises intensive landscaping
and an attractive masonry wall.
— The steeply sloping topography of the site requires
that the fence along Lemay be adjusted frequently.
The proposed design includes sections of fence — level
at the top — that taper in height from approximately
5'-0" to 6'-6 1/2". Columns proposed at the vertical
and horizontal jogs in the fence are up to 7'-4"
high. To reduce the fence to less than five feet
would not give the adjacent lots adequate relief from
Lemay; and the cost of adding more height adjustments
to keep all sections of the fence less than six feet
in height would cause an undue hardship upon the
applicant.
— The level of relief created by the proposed fence
design is desired along the entire side yards of the
three lots that side on Lemay. These lots would be
less protected from the traffic noise if the height of
the fence was reduced to four feet within twenty feet
of their front lot lines.
We respectfully request that these variances be granted at your
May 14, 1987 hearing. We will be happy to provide further
information, or answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
2!�
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
cc: Stan Everitt, Everitt Companies
April 30, 1987
City of Fort Collins
Zoning Board of Appeals
c/o Peter Barnes,
Zoning Administrator
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Board Members;
co
oVwp
urban design, inc.
bldg. 21 suite 242, old town square
fort collins, colorado 80524
(303) 221-0731
As a part of the high quality streetscape treatment for Oak
Ridge Village, project identity signs are proposed at the Lemay
Avenue/Rule Drive and Lemay Avenue/Keenland Drive entries. It is
our understanding that in order to construct the desired entry
treatment, the following variances must be requested:
1. A variance to allow subdivision identity signs at
residential collector/arterial street intersections. (The
Zoning Administrator now interprets that they cannot
consider such an intersection to be a subdivision
entrance.)
The reasons this variance is needed are:
— When one turns east off Lemay onto Rule Drive, or
Keenland Drive, one enters Oak Ridge Village (see
attached maps].
— Many housing developments in Fort Collins have
identity signs at arterial intersections. These
include:
* Southridge Greens
* Nelson Farm
* The Landings
* Warren Shores
* Four Seasons
* Wagonwheel
* Parkwood
* South Meadowlark Heights
* Woodwest
I
urban design, inc.
* Village East
* Stonehenge
To not allow Oak Ridge Village a similar opportunity
would create an undue hardship upon the owner of the
property, and upon the future residents of the area.
2. A variance to allow more than one (1) identification per
entrance to the property identifying a subdivision or
housing project.
3
The reason this variance is needed is:.
- The owner of the property wishes to create a high
quality image with identical entrance treatments on
both sides of the Lemay Avenue/Keenland Drive
intersection.
A variance to allow a sign to be mounted on a structure
more than 42 inches high, within 50 feet of an
intersection, with a setback of less than 15 feet.
The reasons this variance is needed are:
- The signs are proposed as individual brass or bronze
letters applied to a wood and masonry fence. The
fence alone is perfectly legal, and meets City
standards for corner sight distance.
- This variance would not be needed if the applicant
constructed a free standing, 42 inch high sign
structure immediately in front of the wood and masonry
fence. This additional construction would not only
cause an undue hardship upon the owner, but would also
be less attractive.
- The proposed sign area is less than the 35 square foot
allowed area.
- To set the sign walls back fifteen feet from the
street rights -of -way would take away a large portion
of the affected residential lots, causing an undue
hardship on the home owners.
urban design, inc.
We respectfully request that these variances be granted at your
May 14, 1987 hearing. We will be happy to provide further
information, or answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Eldon Ward,
President
Cityscape Urban
Design, Inc.
cc: Stan Everitt, Everitt Companies
Bill Krug, Kem Homes
/u�i�
Tom Dougherty
` Construction, Inc,
May 11, 1987
Zoning Board Administaration
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Lot 1 Manning Subdivision
Dear Members:
With this letter we are respectfully requesting a zoning
variance to allow five (5) feet of roof overhang and wingwall
penetration into the front yard setback (see attached plot
plan).
This request is promted by a twenty seven (27) foot addition
to the full length of the south side of the existing building
on the site. To maintain important architectural and structural
criteria it is important that the addition and roof overhang
be added as shown. The curvature of University Court bends
to the south consequently the projection into the required
setback.
Sincerely,
TOM DOUGHERTYRUCTION, INC.
Thomas N. DougTrerty
President
220 E. Mulberry, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 303-493-4980
• •
CARLYLE V. TIPPETTS, Agent
Auto -Life -Health -Home and Business .ay 27, 190 7
322 South Sherwood - P. 0. Box 123 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Phone: Off. (303) 493-1888
To: City of Fort Collins Variance Board
Regarding: Changes in use of proposed site: 430 Canyon
On November 13, 195-16, a variance was granted for use as an
office at this location by'another party. The project was
abandoned, however, by that party.
The current variance reauested is exactly the same as the one
formerly granted with three (3) exceptions:
1. Usage is proposed primarily as a State Farm insurance
office. This presents an occasional need for parking of
other than private passenger vehicles, that is, motor
homes, and/or trucks, etc. Thus the parking area, instead
of providing four 19 foot parking spaces, would increase
in steps of 3 foot lengths each, to provide space for
longer vehicles, as well as better visibility when backing.
2. The most easterly curb cut on Mulberry is to remain. This is
by far a safer entrance and exit than using exclusively
the 5 corner intersection currently at Mulberry, Canyon,
and l•,'hitcomb. Mr. Ensdorff, the city traffice engineer,
indicated no potential interference with the future
sicnalization of the aforementioned intersection.
3:. The building on the site was formerly a service station,
and contains approximately 1400 seuare feet. My current
office needs would recuire use of only ' of the space.
Therefore, I would lease the other half to someone else.
I currently have a signed letter of intent from Mr. Ted
Liles, who, for the past few years, has operated a mobile
auto emissions testing unit from his vehicle. As of July 1,
19e7, however, the state of Colorado is recuiring all units
to have a building so that testing can be done inside,
'-"his would create the fc'_lowing situation:
" Emissions testing onl., at the location with no repairs
or overnight parking provided.
n, nesting is to be done inside the now existing south bay
of the building, with no further expansion.
C. Hours of operation are by state law, 9 A.M. to 5 P.Y.
(no less),
D. Density of use would be a maximum of 4 vehicles per hour.
CARLYLE V. TIPPfi• gent •
Auto -Life -Health -Home and Business
322 South Sherwood - P. 0. Box 123 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Phone: Off. (303) 4931888
This emissions testing usage is strictly secondary to the
location. Having been a State Farm agent in Fort Collins for
17 years, my primary concern is to protect my business and
my image. A one (1) year lease with Mr. Liles would allow time
to determine the compatibility of such a business with my own.
If this is not, compatible, I would convert the balance of the
building into office space, either for myself for expansion, or
Possibly as an additional office rental.
Sincerely,
Car
le V. Tippetts
\