The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1/14/2021 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Zba Final Agenda January 14 Meeting Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting will be held virtually The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2021 8:30 AM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Participation for this remote Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Zoning Board of Appeals via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/91696289403. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:15 a.m. on January 14, 2021. Participants should try to sign in prior to 8:30 a.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email jluther@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. The number to dial is +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128, with webinar ID: 916 9628 9403. (Continued on next page) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 January 14, 2021 • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200050 Address: 603 Bayberry Circle Owner: Mark and Shawn Grafitti Petitioner: Travis Grafitti Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) & (2) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to install a 6 feet tall fence in the front yard. The allowed maximum height is 4 feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA200051 Address: 2006 Lindsey Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Brent Ulbert Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow a pergola to remain encroaching 0 feet within the 5-foot required side-yard setback. The columns are set back 2 feet and the eaves extend to the side property line. The meeting will be available beginning at 8:15 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 8:30 a.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email jluther@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, the Staff Liaison needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 January 14, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA200052 Address: 232 Lyons St. Owner/Petitioner: Jason Jones Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for two variances to build a garage encroaching 2 feet into the 5-foot required north side-yard setback and encroaching 3 feet into the 5-foot required rear-yard setback along an alley. 4. APPEAL ZBA200053 Address: 3038 S College Ave. Owner: GPM RE LLC Petitioner: Michael Skinner Zoning District: C-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Table (E); 3.8.7.2(A)(1) Table (A) Project Description: This is a request for 3 variances to the sign code:(1) Exceed the maximum percentage of 30% allowed per canopy face. 100% per side is being requested; (2) Exceed the one sign per canopy face. Requesting that 3 of the 4 sides (North, West, South) have 2 signs per face; (3) Exceed the overall allowed sign area of the site by 557 square feet. The maximum sign area allowed for this site is 275 square feet. 5. APPEAL ZBA200054 Address: 500 Albion Wy Owner/Petitioner: Talia Fox Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 80 square feet for an addition to the primary structure. • OTHER BUSINESS Nominations for 2021 ZBA Chair and Vice Chair • ADJOURNMENT 1 Jennifer Luther From:Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com> Sent:Thursday, January 07, 2021 4:24 PM To:Noah Beals Cc:Jennifer Luther Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Zoning Board of Appeals (January 2021) Hi Noah. I agree with the staff recommendation. Thanks Ralph Shields 970.231.7665 From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:44 AM To: Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com> Cc: Jennifer Luther <jluther@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: Zoning Board of Appeals (January 2021) Hello Chair‐person Shields, Since May 2020 the ZBA has conducted a remote hearing. These remote hearings appear to have met the needs of the board members and the applicants. The concerns that prompted these remote meetings have not dissipated.  Health risks during a world‐wide pandemic  Difficulties in coordinating logistics for an in‐person meeting or hybrid of such It is staff recommendation to continue with a remote hearing for January 2021 meeting of the ZBA. Please respond to this email with your agreement with this recommendation or other suggestions for this hearing. Kind Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 Tell us about our service, we want to know! ‐‐ COVID19 Resources For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/ Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/ 2 Recursos COVID‐19 Para integrantes de la comunidad: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus Para empresas: https://www.fcgov.com/business/ ¿Quieres ayudar o necesitas ayuda? https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/adopt Recursos de United Way: https://uwaylc.org/ Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2020 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present except Shields  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve the November 12, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200046 – APPROVED Address: 1218 Canvasback Ct Owner/Petitioner: Xiang Hong Lee Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1)) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area by 242 square feet by enclosing a deck area on more than three (3) sides. In the R-L (low density residential) zone district, the allowable maximum floor area is one-third 1(/3) of the square footage of the lot. This is the second request to increase the allowable floor area for the lot. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the work was done prior. There is a building permit and during that process it was discovered that a variance was needed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 December 10, 2020 Boardmember Meyer wanted clarification regarding square footage – is it defined by space that is enclosed on more than three sides or enclosed on three sides or more. Beals clarified that it was enclosed on more than three sides. Boardmember LaMastra asked about the building permit and wanted clarification on whether the building permit was pulled after the beginning of construction. Beals confirmed that this was the case. Applicant Presentation: Darin Paine, 200 Blevins Ct, addressed the board, and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. He noted that the structure is underneath the existing deck and will be nominal and inconsequential to the neighborhood. Boardmember Stockover wanted to know if there was a picture prior to construction. Beals confirmed that there was not. Beals also confirmed the orientation of the enclosure. Boardmember LaMastra wanted to clarify that the East and West sides were open previously. Applicant Paine clarified that the North, East and South sides were enclosed since the house was built. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton noted that there was a letter of support for this variance. He also noted that there are no neighbors in the back that are impacted. He will be in support. Boardmember Shuff will be in support but wanted to encourage the applicants to go through the proper process for obtaining building permits. Boardmembers McCoy, Stockover and LaMastra will also be in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Meyer to approve ZBA200046 for the following reasons: Granting the modification to the standard would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use code as contained in section 1.2.2 with the following findings: There is a low visual perception of the increase, the increase is 6.5% of allowable floor area for the lot, there is neighborhood support with no opposition, and the increase in the addition does not add any more impervious area. Yeas: Stockover, Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, McCoy, and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA200047 – APPROVED Address: 3100 S. College Ave Ste. 110 Owner: Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC Petitioner: Charley Schalliol Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(A)(1) Table A; 3.8.7.2(D) Table D Project Description: This is a request for a variance to exceed the allowable sign square footage for the building and exceed the allowable sign area displayed on an awning. This tenant space is allowed 93 square feet of sign area. The proposed signs will exceed it by 469.24 square feet. Awnings are limited to 25% square feet of signage. The request is for 100% of the awning to be used for sign area. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the location of the property at the Foothills Mall. This is a new tenant that wants to put up signs on the North and West sides of the building. There will also be illuminated signs place on the East and West sides of the building, which puts the square footage above the sign allowance. The color of an awning counts Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 December 10, 2020 as a sign. He also showed adjacent properties which have similar awnings which were approved previously by the Board. He also noted that Staff recommends approval of two awnings to reduce sign pollution. Boardmember Lawton wanted clarification that the awnings and the color of them was what was driving the variance to the sign allowance. Beals confirmed and also clarified that approval would also mean that the applicant could put wording on the awnings. Boardmember Meyer wanted clarification that the awnings on the East wall awnings does not count toward the square footage. Beals confirmed and explained that the awnings do not face toward the public right of way. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Charley Schalliol, 66001 Nimz Pkwy, South Bend, IN, addressed the board and agreed to hear the appeal remotely. He noted that there are no plans to add text to the awnings and ownership does not even allow text on awnings. The color is not a trademarked color. The building sign itself is subtle, so the color would add some presence to be available on the elevation. The North elevation is tight, so they would like to have all the awnings on that side to be green. Because the entrance is interior, they are hoping that the awnings will attract customers. Boardmember Lawton asked about lighting. The applicant confirmed that the awnings will not be illuminated. Audience Participation: Garin Daum, 1400 Patton St, addressed the board. He is the owner’s representative (Foothills Mall) and is in support of Fidelity’s plans. Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff appreciates the clarification that there are no plans for signage. He would like a condition for this. He is in agreement that the North elevation is not very visible and would be flexible to including these awnings. Boardmember McCoy will be in support. Boardmember Meyer asked about the condition being suggested. If the condition is provided, does it prevent future ownership from doing this. Beals suggested that the variance be approved without condition. Boardmember Stockover noted that all the car dealerships nearby are branded. He would like to approve all 4 awnings. Boardmember Lawton noted that awnings make sense over windows, so he would be in approval of all awnings. Boardmember LaMastra does not see any issue with all 4 awnings and believes it would add to the aesthetics of the building. Beals wanted to clarify that the recommendation states that the motion was stated as depicted in the application, without adding a condition. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve ZBA200047 for the following reasons: Granting the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted would not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: Awnings are used for signage in the Foothills Mall subdivision; there is not additional signage proposed on the North side of the building, and the awnings are limited to what has been depicted in this presentation. Yeas: Stockover, Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, McCoy, and Lawton. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 December 10, 2020 3. APPEAL ZBA200049 – TABLED Address: 1050 Hobbit St Owner RTA Hobbit LLC Petitioner: Lisa Croston Zoning District: M-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to install a monument sign 10 feet from the adjacent residential zone. The required setback is 75 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that this is a recently approved development project at the end of a cul-de-sac and noting sign location facing toward Hobbit St. There is a tree in the proposed landscape plan. The project was approved under Landmark Apartments, and the sign would distinguish this as “The Social”. There is an adjacent vacant property with no approved Development Plan. There is an application submitted and the uses are multi-family and mixed-use buildings. There is a single family detached neighborhood to the West. Staff recommendation is that the sign is only illuminated on one side and that the proposed tree in the landscape plan is still planted. Boardmember LaMastra asked how this impacts the parking lot landscape requirements and if Forestry has provided input. Beals confirmed that Forestry has not yet provided comment. The timing of when the tree is put in might play into the acceptance. LaMastra asked if any application was submitted for signage on the building. Beals confirmed that no application has been submitted for this. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Emily Yokom, 465 S Wright St, Lakewood, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. She was not aware of the landscaping plan when applying for the variance. They would be willing to work around the tree. Audience Participation: Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Dr, addressed the Board. She asked for clarification on the owner of the property. The street number of 1050 Hobbit applies to the existing Landmark building. She believes the sign location was slightly off in the pictures and that the sign location is a small piece of property. The sign is not on a heavily traveled roadway where passersby would need an advanced notice of the property location. She questioned the size and bulk of the sign and believes it would contribute to sign clutter. The sign should be one-sided so that it does not hinder the aesthetics to the trail. Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Dr, addressed the board. She believes that the ownership identification is critical because the approval is based on shared amenities. The size and illumination to the east is also a concern. She is concerned that this was not part of the original application. The applicant stated that the ownership listed is Summit Management. The address has always been 1050 Hobbit St. Beals stated that the ownership based on Larimer Assessor is RTA Hobbit LLC. It is common for an owner to hire a management group and the management group hire subcontractors. He also confirmed the property address is correct. Board Discussion: Boardmember Meyer appreciated that the potential conflict with the landscaping plan was pointed out. He questioned the appropriateness of the sign and believes that one-sided illumination is appropriate. He agrees that the constraint of the sight makes this a hardship. Boardmember Shuff is struggling with the location. He thinks it is more appropriate to have it on a main arterial to get the most visibility. He noted potential development on the South would make this less impactful. Boardmember Stockover thinks it is too much for the location. If the branding is for a separate project, it should be on a main arterial. If the intention is to locate the property, it is not effective. The scale is too large and he does not see the need. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 December 10, 2020 Boardmember McCoy is not concerned with the scale because he believes the variance is for the setback. He has questions regarding how the owners are managing it and the need for the sign location. He agrees with public comment against the illumination from the East side. Boardmember Lawton has the same concerns. He is curious why the name is different since the address is the same as the property across the street. Boardmember LaMastra does not think the illumination on the back side is an issue since the trail is significantly south. She does not see the point of the two-faced sign. This appears to be a monument sign. This should be a way finding sign instead. She would not be in support. Stockover asked to hear from the applicant. He thinks a continuance would be appropriate with the applicant bringing back something that would be more in scale with what the Board has in mind. The Applicant responded that she will touch base with the client. The owner considers this to be the main entrance. She believes they would be willing to go smaller. The owner was insistent on the location. Beals suggested that a motion be made for a continuance to the February meeting. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to continue ZBA200049 to the February 2021 Hearing. Yeas: Stockover, Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, McCoy, and Lawton. Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED.  OTHER BUSINESS – Review and Approval of 2021 ZBA Work Plan Beals reviewed the work plan. Stockover made a motion seconded by LaMastra to approve the 2021 ZBA work plan. The motion was adopted unanimously.  ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 10:26 AM, Shelley LaMastra, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 14, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200050 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 603 Bayberry Circle Owner: Mark and Shawn Grafitti Petitioner: Travis Grafitti Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) & (2) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to install a 6 feet tall fence in the front yard. The allowed maximum height is 4 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1974 as part of the Val Vista Annexation. Later in 1994 the property was developed as part of the Greenbriar Village PUD. The original lot was approximately 90 feet in width. In 1995 part of the public right-of-way (ROW) named Redwood Street was vacated and this increased the lot width to approximately 113 feet. During the development approval of Greenbriar Village PUD, the building received approval to be sited in the southeast corner of the lot. This approval was to accommodate the GREELEY waterline easement that runs diagonally on the lot starting in the northwest corner heading south and east. This easement results in a large front and west-side yard. This request is an effort to bring the property into compliance. A fence was installed and subsequently a complaint was received by the City concerning its proximity to the public sidewalk. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The waterline easement prevented the building to be sited similar to the other properties in the PUD. • The side and front yards are larger and the rear yard smaller than found on other properties in the PUD. • The fence has been moved to comply with the setback from a public sidewalk. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200050 Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 603 Bayberry Circle Mark Grafitti/Travis Grafitti Owner/son 80524 7048 Meadowbrook Lane Sedalia Mark and Shawn Grafitti 720-371-1987 3.8.11 grafitti56@gmail.com City of Fort Collins Travis Grafitti 603 Bayberry Circle 720-412-3901 travis.grafitti@gmail.com 1) All privacy yard fencing around the entire neighborhood is 6' cedar picket-style just as we intend to install in our yard. So, in the context of the neighborhood, we will not be diverging from Land Use Code. Please see the accompanying Word Document for additional justifications for this variance request. November 27, 2020 Mark Grafitti 3. Nominal and inconsequential 1. Hardship Additional Justification 1 Jennifer Luther From:Noah Beals Sent:Wednesday, January 06, 2021 1:42 PM To:Jennifer Luther Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Appeal: ZBA200050 From: Rosemary Lucas <rosemary.b.lucas@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 1:37 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Bob Lucas <robertlucas1972@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal: ZBA200050 Hello Noah, We appreciate being informed of our neighbors' request for variance for installing a 6 foot fence in their front yard. We support their variance request; it is okay with us if they wish to put up the 6 foot fence in their front yard.. Warm regards, Rosemary B. Lucas Robert M. Lucas 601 Foxtail St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 603 Bayberry Circle, Fort Collins Mark, Shawn (owners) and Travis (resident) Grafitti Zoning Variance Application Additional Information 1) All privacy yard fencing around the entire neighborhood is 6' cedar picket-style just as we intend to install in our yard. So, in the context of the neighborhood, we will not be diverging from Land Use Code. 2) The view will not be significantly or inappropriately blocked at westbound Bayberry Circle/northbound Redwood Street because the short section that is going to be/is (pending engineering permit approval) 2 ft inboard of the sidewalk is only about 40 ft of fencing that is actually about 100 ft from the corner where westbound Bayberry traffic will stop to look south for approaching cross traffic. The majority of the fence around the corner at Bayberry and Redwood is about 15 ft inboard of the sidewalk all the way around the corner of the entire lot. 3) The overall house placement and design of this lot is quite unusual (exceptional situation unique to the property). The house sits, to the inch, tucked into the corner on easements to the south and east of the property lines. The driveway and the front door, obviously, are facing Bayberry circle; the sliding glass egress door to the back/side yard faces to the west and Redwood Street. These lot design features, along with the fact that this property is a corner lot, effectively eliminates what one might refer to as a “back yard”, and places the back yard – and any hopes of security and privacy to the SIDE YARD along Redwood Street and part of the corner at Bayberry Circle. Additionally, a vast majority of the fence design calls for the fence being at least 15 ft inboard of the sidewalks around the entire southeast corner because of utilities, including a manhole cover and vent/inspection pipes along Redwood Street and a fire hydrant along Bayberry Circle, despite this significant swath of property being owned, landscaped, and maintained by us. 1 Jennifer Luther From:Mark Grafitti <grafitti56@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 18, 2020 10:16 AM To:Jamie Kimberlin Cc:Ryan Boehle Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 603 Bayberry Circle We’ve relocated the 8 posts along the sidewalk to be in compliance with the 2ft requirement. 2 3 This photo shows a cut post adjacent to the sidewalk and the new location of the row. ‐Mark Grafitti Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2020, at 8:19 AM, Jamie Kimberlin <jkimberlin@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Mark, I cannot speak for the board of appeals what the outcome will be. A well‐thought out application and logical argument do help. I will give feedback as best I can once I review your materials. Jamie Kimberlin Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 jkimberlin@fcgov.com | 970.416.2401 *Development Review Center is opened in a limited capacity: Mon. – Thurs., 9AM to 4PM. Virtual Services are still recommended.* Tell us about our service, we want to know! Northern Colorado’s One Stop Shop for Business Recovery Resources 4 <image002.png> From: Mark Grafitti <grafitti56@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:26 PM To: Jamie Kimberlin <jkimberlin@fcgov.com> Cc: Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 603 Bayberry Circle Understood. I’m getting the bid tonight to re‐dig the posts along the sidewalk. In describing to my wife the process that we’re following here, a question occurred to me...Is there a chance that I sink 32 posts in concrete ($1800), re‐dig 8 more ($500?), all on the assumption that I have a back yard that should be granted a 6’ variance, but this process somehow concludes that my back yard isn’t in the back enough for ordinance compliance ‐ which then results in y’all giving me permission to build a 4’ fence which does me no good at all for security and keeping a dog in? Can I get a kinda‐ish “looks like it’ll be ok when you get your paperwork in” so I don’t keep wasting money if my back yard is gonna be denied? ‐Mark Grafitti Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2020, at 8:48 AM, Jamie Kimberlin <jkimberlin@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning! The engineering fence permit is a separate approval from the land use code variance‐ the variance is still required for approval of the fence being over 4’ tall, but no more than 6’ tall if that is still your intention. The next application deadline is December 8th for January 14th hearing. If approved, work could immediately commence on the fence as a building permit is not required. Jamie Kimberlin Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 jkimberlin@fcgov.com | 970.416.2401 *Development Review Center is opened in a limited capacity: Mon. – Thurs., 9AM to 4PM. Virtual Services are still recommended.* Tell us about our service, we want to know! Northern Colorado’s One Stop Shop for Business Recovery Resources <image003.png> 5 From: Mark Grafitti <grafitti56@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2020 1:42 PM To: Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> Cc: Jamie Kimberlin <jkimberlin@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 603 Bayberry Circle Is the fence permit going to be subject to what I understand as a variance hearing? ‐ the ones that get turned in on the second Thursday of the month and require a bunch of other documentation? I’m working on re‐placing the posts along the sidewalk, but that might take a little bit. I’m just trying to potentially expedite so I’m not fence building in 20 degrees in January or February. Can I theoretically turn in the permit before the posts are relocated? ‐Mark Grafitti Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Here is a copy of that fence permit. Once the posts along the west side of your property have been moved back 2’ from the back of walk please send me a copy of the permit and we can sign it off. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Thanks, Ryan Boehle Senior Construction Inspector ‐ Engineering City of Fort Collins Office:970‐416‐2906 Cell:970‐568‐6940 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 rboehle@fcgov.com <image005.jpg> <image002.png> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Engineering Mailbox <engineering@fcgov.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:33 AM To: Mark Grafitti <grafitti56@gmail.com> 6 Cc: Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: 603 Bayberry Circle Good Morning Mark, Attached is a fence permit you will need to complete and return. Ryan‐ Can you give Mark a call to answer his questions? Thank you! Connie Kiehn City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department 281 N College Ave Ft. Collins, CO 80524 (970) 416‐2135 ckiehn@fcgov.com <image001.png> <image002.png> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Mark Grafitti <grafitti56@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:22 AM To: Engineering Mailbox <engineering@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: 603 Bayberry Circle Good morning. I am attempting to do all the right things to get a fence properly and lawfully installed at our property at 603 Bayberry Circle. I’ve understood from Jamie Kimberlin that I’m supposed to contact you guys in order to proceed; please see below. Can I actually speak to one of y’all so I can get my ducks in a row? I’ve filled out a zoning variance application, but I’m still not sure if I need to apply for an additional permit or what. 720‐371‐1987 Mark Grafitti – Property Owner Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jamie Kimberlin Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:11 AM To: Mark Grafitti; Shawn ICE Wife; travis.grafitti@gmail.com Subject: RE: 603 Bayberry Circle Good morning Mark, Thanks for responding so quickly. Attached is the email string from back in June. It looks like my colleague Meaghan specified the 2 foot requirement as well as height requirements for fences forward of the 7 front of the home. Please review the attached. We had also spoken about going through a variance to request approval for the fence height over 4’ ‐this process is still available to you, the next deadline being December 8th for January 14th hearing. Otherwise the fence will need to be re‐worked to comply with all current land use code standards. The statement you provided below with all of the reasons the fence has been located where it is would serve as justification for the variance you are seeking. It sounds like the variance would be asking for additional height in the front yard, and location closer than 2’ from sidewalk. I was incorrect back in June about the 6’ fence also needing a building permit‐ only fences over 6’ require this. However‐ if the board were to grant this approval, The City Engineering Department will also require review and an encroachment permit. Please contact engineering@fcgov.com for more info. The fence would also need to be designed to keep sight distance triangle in mind on Redwood Dr. Here are the variance guidelines and app again ‐ https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/zoning‐variance‐ guidelines.pdf?1582667393 If you choose to proceed, please collate all required materials and email to zoning@fcgov.com by 3pm December 8th. We will review for completeness and contact you for payment over the phone. App fee is $25 + .75 for each affected property owner within 150ft. <image003.png> Jamie Kimberlin Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 jkimberlin@fcgov.com | 970.416.2401 *Development Review Center is opened in a limited capacity: Mon. – Thurs., 9AM to 4PM. Virtual Services are still recommended.* Tell us about our service, we want to know! Northern Colorado’s One Stop Shop for Business Recovery Resources <image004.png> From: Mark Grafitti <grafitti56@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:34 AM To: Jamie Kimberlin <jkimberlin@fcgov.com>; Shawn ICE Wife <shawn.grafitti@gmail.com>; travis.grafitti@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] 603 Bayberry Circle Good morning. A while back, you responded to an email that my wife sent inquiring about fencing the yard at 603 Bayberry Circle in Fort Collins. At the time, we had questions about where we could place the fence on the south border of the property where there is a drainage 8 easement that the house butts up to (to the inch!). Your response was detailed and helpful and much appreciated. Since we did not end up placing the fence posts anywhere near the easement, and since we had the utilities located twice, we proceeded with our project. While the posts were being placed, a neighbor stopped by our house three times to complain that we are not in compliance with a fencing ordinance that requires the fence to be set off the sidewalk; there is a section of 8 posts that is around 40 feet long that we have placed along the sidewalk for a few reasons: 1) There is fencing all around the neighborhood that is along the sidewalks, including several hundred feet of privacy/yard cedar picket fencing that is identical to our design, right across the street from us. 2) We have a sewer line that runs a few feet inboard of the sidewalk that we are trying to stay away from. 3) There is a tree in the yard that is just a few more feet inboard from the sidewalk than the sewer line and the fence/sidewalk. And 4) There are electrical, gas, sewer, and communications lines running all around the corner and through the yard, some terminating in large boxes that sit in/on the easement to the south that have further limited our design. In summary, we did the best we could; we did not know about the fence/sidewalk placement issue; we are interested in and value following the rules so that our neighbors and the city of Fort Collins are OK with our property. Can you help me proceed? It seems now that we may need to apply for a permit(?). And I suppose within the constraints of that permit, we’d like to apply for a variance on the 8 posts that have already been placed next to the sidewalk. Thank you. ~Mark Grafitti 720‐371‐1987 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 <FencePermit.pdf> Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 14, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200051 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2006 Lindsey Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Brent Ulbert Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to allow a pergola to remain encroaching 0 feet within the 5-foot required side- yard setback. The columns are set back 2 feet and the eaves extend to the side property line. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1978 as part of the Trend Homes Second Annexation and received development approval in 1988 with the Rossborough Forth Filing plat. The required side setback has not changed since the property was initially developed. The pergola structure was built without a permit. The applicant is seeking to obtain an after the fact permit. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval provided the structure does not cross the property line and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public. • The pergola is open on three sides. • The covering is semi-transparent. • There is not fencing attached to the columns. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200051 Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons : (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not lim ited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirem ents would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-im posed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 2006 Lindsey Ct Variance Details Ulbert Property To whom it may concern, Regarding code section 4.4 (D)(d), I believe my pergola fits in line with an existing deck and diverges from code in a nominal and inconsequential way. I purchased this home in 2011 and began immediate improvements on the property. My significant other, now wife, moved in with me shortly thereafter. We upgraded features throughout the home, as we had planned to live there for many years. In 2017 an incredible job opportunity in Colorado Springs presented itself and we have rented the home ever since. In the photos attached, you can see the pergola we built. It was built with the help of a friend, a civil engineer. We had several neighbors stop by during construction and comment on how beautiful it was, including our neighbor closest to the pergola. During our time there we chatted many times and she never had anything bad to say about the pergola. From the street, it is not difficult to see but does not dominate your view. We sized the pergola to match the deck which was on the house when we purchased it. From the looks of it, it was at least a decade old, probably more. It made sense to have the pergola cover the entire deck. At the time, we were unaware of any size restriction on a structure like this. It was our first home and we were excited to nest and make it our own. We maintain the deck and the pergola annually with clear stain. Our neighbor--directly to the north-- Matt and Kenley Skinner have written a letter in support of our pergola (attached). They have been in the neighborhood over a decade and share a fence with us. Overall, we believe the pergola adds to the aesthetics of the home and the neighborhood. It’s in our backyard and does not obstruct any views for our neighbors. It increases property value and is a good addition to the neighborhood. Thank you, Brent Ulbert Owner, 2006 Lindsey Ct brent@radonpds.com 970-692-9408 memo To: Whom it may concern From: Matthew H. Skinner CC: Brent Ulbert Date: November 13, 2020 Re: Brent’s Ulbert’s Pergola Comments: My name is Matthew H. Skinner and I own the property at 2013 Newcastle Ct. which is directly behind and to the north of Brent Ulbert’s property. My wife and I have a full view of the pergola from our patio area and believe that the pergola is a nice addition to the home and to the neighborhood. The pergola is made of good quality wood that is pleasant to look at and Mr. Ulbert performs yearly maintenance on the addition which keeps the pergola in good repair and looking nice. My wife and I do not have a problem with its size or location. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 14, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200052 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 232 Lyons St. Owner/Petitioner: Jason Jones Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4) Variance Request: This is a request for two variances to build a garage encroaching 2 feet into the 5-foot required north side-yard setback and encroaching 3 feet into the 5-foot required rear-yard setback along an alley. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City and received development approval in 1954. The primary building was later built in 1971. A concrete patio was added to the rear of the house. The remaining space is limited from the edge of the patio to the rear property line. This distance is 28 feet. The garage length from east to west is 22.33 feet. Along the alley there is a utility pedestal. The applicant is requesting the encroachment into the side setback to align the pedestal in the middle of the two parking stalls of the garage. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the 2-foot encroachment into the north side-yard setback and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The utility pedestal makes it difficult to meet the side-yard setback. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Further staff recommends denial of any encroachment into the rear-yard setback and finds: • The garage can be placed against the patio and meet the 5-foot yard setback. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of 1 out of the 2 requested variances of APPEAL ZBA200052 Zoning Variance Request Property Owner: Jason Jones Property Address: 232 Lyons Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 To the Zoning Board Commission, I am writing this letter to formally request a Zoning Variance for my property at 232 Lyons Street in Fort Collins. The requested variance is described in the following paragraphs and is for the express purpose of constructing a detached garage on said property. Specifically, I am requesting a variance for the required 5’ setbacks on both the North and East property lines. Eastern Property Line: The garage structure that I would like to build has a depth of 22’, with an additional 1’ overhang for the roofline. If this structure is placed 5’ from the East property line, it will interfere with an existing concrete patio that was constructed by previous owners at 28’ from Eastern Property Boundary. As a result, I’d like to request that the required setback be allowed to be changed to 1’ from the East property line. If allowed to be constructed in this manner, the roofline of the garage would be 1’ from East Property Line, with the garage wall being placed 2’ from same boundary. This would, therefore, allow for a minimal space between the western wall of the proposed garage and the existing concrete patio. Northern Property Line: Along with the aforementioned depth of 22’, the intended structure would have a width of 20’, also with a 1’ roofline on each side. Separately, it needs to be noted that there is currently a Century Link Utility Pedestal located in the ally to the east of the Eastern Property Line. More specifically, this Utility Pedestal is located at a distance of 16’ from North Property Boundary (15’ from existing fence on same boundary). Although this pedestal is not technically located on my property, it does have the potential to interfere with the construction of the detached garage. That being said, if this detached garage was constructed in a location that would allow for the pedestal to line up with the center of garage door, it is my belief that the pedestal would not interfere with the function of the garage, i.e., driving vehicles in and out of garage. Following this logic, I am requesting that the required 5’ variance be reduced to 3’ from the north property line. Additionally, the pre-existing fence on the southern edge of the property was constructed more than 3’ inside of the actual property line, apparently done in order to accommodate large trees planted many years prior on said boundary. As a result, there has been the creation of an artificial “narrowness” of the property. By allowing for the garage to be placed 3’ from north property boundary, this would also allow for the preservation of what remains of the previously- reduced space on property (preserve additional backyard space). In considering the above variance request(s), it is my belief that they would NOT be detrimental to the public good and WOULD meet both the first and third reasons for justifications as outlined by the Zoning Board in the Zoning Variance Guidelines (see below). (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I look forward to further discussion in the upcoming Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. Respectfully, Jason Jones This map/plat is being furnished as an aid in locating the herein described Land in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other land, and is not a survey of the land depicted.Except to the extent a policy of title insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the Company does not insure dimensions, distances, location of easements, acreage or other matters Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 14, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200053 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 3038 S College Ave Owner: GPM RE LLC Petitioner: Michael Skinner Zoning District: C-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Table (E); 3.8.7.2(A)(1) Table (A) Variance Request: This is a request for 3 variances to the sign code:(1) Exceed the maximum percentage of 30% allowed per canopy face. 100% per side is being requested; (2) Exceed the one sign per canopy face. Requesting that 3 of the 4 sides (North, West, South) have 2 signs per face; (3) Exceed the overall allowed sign area of the site by 557 square feet. The maximum sign area allowed for this site is 275 square feet. . COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1965 and received development approval a short time later. The original building was approximately constructed in1967. It was built as a service (fueling) station and has maintained this use until the present. One of the purposes of the sign code is to limit sign clutter. Standards restricting the number of signs on a canopy, the percentage of the canopy that can be used as signage and the allowed square footage of signage on a property help prevent the over usage of signs. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • An increase of signage can be detrimental to the public good. • The doubling of allowed signage on the property is not nominal. • The property is located on a street corner and is visible from multiple viewpoints of the public right- of-way. Therefore, insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA200053 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 14, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200054 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 500 Albion Way Owner: Talia Fox Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Variance Request: This is a request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 80 square feet for an addition to the primary structure. . COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1978 as part of the Horsetooth Harmony annexation. It was later platted and received development approval in 1980. Shortly thereafter, the primary structure was built in 1981. The Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district restricts the amount of the square footage on the property based on the lot size. The allowed square footage is 1/3 of the lot size. The subject property is 5,115 square feet allowing a total of 1,705 square feet. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The addition will meet the required setbacks. • The visual perception of an additional 80 square feet is minimal. • The addition is on the rear of the building and not visible from the street. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200054 Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 500 Albion Way 80526 Talia Fox 4.4 D1 RL according to the zoning guidlines, I am allowed 100 Sq Ft at this point. I'd like to add 180 Sq Ft total in the form of a sun room at the back of the house. It would not be visible from the street and would be in an alcove area that would simply not go past where the house ends on either the back or the side . It would just square off a back alcove. A sun room would offer me an area to grow my many orchids and houseplants as well as an area to over winter my garden veggies. The extra 80 Sq Ft would be minimal and would not change the house in any significant way 11-16-2020 Talia Fox 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification Additional Justification