The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/11/2021 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Zba Final Packet March 11 2021 Hearing 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 MARCH 11 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/91948209556. 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 March 11, 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: 919 4820 9556. (Continued on next page) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 11, 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 ZBA210006 Address: 528 W Mountain Ave Owner: Misha and Jason Green Petitioner: Jordan Obermann Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(1)(g) Project Description: This is request for a new single family detached home to use roof pitches of 16:12 where the maximum allowed is 12:12. 2. APPEAL ZBA210007 Address: 1154 W. Mountain Ave Owner: Elizabeth James Petitioner: Jeffrey Schneider Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5); 4.7(F)(2)(b)(1): 4.7(F)(2)(b)(3) Project Description: This is a request to build a new accessory building that requires two variances. The first variance is for an accessory building with habitable space to exceed the maximum floor area by 43 square feet. The proposed accessory structure would total 643 square feet of floor area, where 600 square feet of floor area is permitted. The second variance is for the eave at the side lot line to exceed the maximum allowed of 14.5 feet by 8.5 feet totaling a 23-foot eave height due to the gabled end of the roof facing a side lot 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 March 11, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA210008 Address: 2021 Yorktown Ave Owner/Petitioner: Dustin Fisher Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request for a variance for an accessory structure to encroach 7 feet into the 15-foot rear setback. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 1 Jennifer Luther From:Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:09 PM To:Noah Beals Cc:Jennifer Luther Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Zoning Board of Appeals (January 2021) I agree with the recommendation. Thanks Ralph Shields 970.231.7665 From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 4:51 PM 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 February – May 2021 meetings 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! 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 FEBRUARY 11, 2021 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the January 14, 2021 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously with LaMastra abstaining.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200049 – APPROVED 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 where the sign will be placed and the requirements for the setback. There was a landscape plan submitted. The applicant has discussed with Forestry since the last meeting and came up with a plan on how to plant a tree as well as put the sign in. Staff is recommending that the sign only be illuminated on one sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 11, 2021 LaMastra requested an overview of what has changed since the last hearing. Beals confirmed that the design has not changed at all. Lawton asked what the main concerns were which lead this to be tabled. Beals stated that there was concern by the public and also the applicant wasn’t able to answer all questions presented by the Board. Applicant Presentation: Todd Mros from Ramsey Signs, 9160 SE 74th Ave, Portland OR 97206, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. He explained that there is nowhere else to place the sign and maintain the 75-foot setback. Forestry did confirm that there is room for the tree and the sign. Illumination will be indirect halo illumination, meaning that it will not shine out and will be less intrusive than ground lights. He showed pictures from many vantage points of the sign. He also showed where future trees will be placed based on the landscaping plan which was approved. Vice Chair LaMastra was still not clear on why the sign must be sided on the back. The applicant responded that the owner believe that their signs add to the perception of the property and feel strongly that this is a value add to their property. He stated that there are options, but the preference is for a double-sided sign. Chair Shields asked whether the sign will even be visible from the back side. The applicant stated he was not sure. Audience Participation: Katherien Dubiel, Fort Collins 80525, addressed the board and asked about the size of the lettering. She wanted to know from what distance this is readable. She also wanted to know what other signs would be present at the site (parking signs, etc) as she is concerned about sign clutter. Applicant responded that the letters are 12 inches. He does not have information on other signage but would assume it would only be signs which would be allowed in the code. He also confirmed that the ownership is RTA Hobbit LLC Irvine, CA 92612 Chair Shields asked Beals about other signage. Beals is not aware of any other signage at this time but was not sure. He imagined there might be a parking sign somewhere. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra does not think the sign will be noticeable from the single-family residences. The parking lot lights will have a bigger impact. She still does not understand why the sign must be on both sides but does not see it as an impact. She will be in support. Chair Shields asked whether the sign allowance counts both sides – Beals confirmed. Boardmember Stockover mentioned that the sign will be less visible as time goes on. He also believes the back of the sign will be a moot point. He believes signage is important for directional purposes. He will be in support. Boardmember Lawton thought the application did a good job of explaining the distance between the sign and residences. He still does not understand the reason for the rear lighting but doesn’t think it will be a limitation. He will be in support. Boardmember Shuff thinks the hardship is there as the parcel is uniquely located. It will fit in well once the other development goes into the adjacent area. He is in support. Boardmember Meyer thinks that the letters will be taller than 12 inches but will be in support. Applicant did confirm that the lettering will be 18 inches. Chair Shields thinks the sign will be low impact. The pictures were helpful and appreciated. He will be in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve ZBA200049 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical conditions unique to the property which is subject to the request as follows: The property only has 44.25 feet in length from interior lot line to interior lot line. 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. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 11, 2021 2. APPEAL ZBA210001 – APPROVED Address: 1306 W Mountain Ave Owner: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen Petitioner: Jeffrey Schneider Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to construct a 656 square foot accessory building exceeding the maximum allowed 600 square foot floor area by 56 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the code does not restrict the number of buildings or the spacing of accessory structures, only the total square footage. Proposal is to be side-loaded. There are dual processes at play. This property is a designated historic property. There would be a separate process for demolition. Karen McWilliams, Historic preservation manager, addressed the Board and added that HP concern of the proposal to remove the garage is very unlikely to be supported by the Landmark Preservation Commission. The application is not feasible. She requests that this be tabled until March when the LPC meeting will take place. They will have further clarification after this meeting. There are several approvals which will be needed by the commission. Boardmember Shuff would want to know if this should just be tabled at this time. Chair Shields agreed. Council Havelda wanted input from the applicant before any decision is made. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jeffrey Schneider, Fort Collins District 1 80524, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. The clients did not realize that the garage was historic. They are aware of the different processes and wanted to run things concurrently (demolition permits, Historic Preservation and ZBA). They are meeting with LPC on March 17th to talk through the home altercations. He was not aware of when the demolition of the garage would be going before the LPC. Boardmember LaMastra believes that this should be heard now since the applicant is here and has all of the information. She does not believe that the additional information should stop the hearing in the context of the information that they have. The applicant agreed with this and noted they are trying to save time while working through multiple processes. Boardmember Lawton sees the value of hearing this now. It would give the petitioner freedom to work. LaMastra asked whether the overall area is still within the parameters of code. Beals confirmed. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover believes hearing this is the right thing to do. He does not feel it will hinder LPC in their hearings. This is a minimal addition and he will be in support. Boardmember Lawton asked whether the approval is tied to the size of the building or to the overall plan. Beals stated that the approval is not tied to the plan. Boardmember Shuff does not have a big issue with the addition. He feels tying the proposal to the plan is important and we should be specific in approval. Boardmember LaMastra agrees that it needs to be tied to the site plan. Boardmember McCoy is ok with a simple variance for the square footage overage and does not understand the reason to be specific. Boardmember Meyer thinks the proposal is specific to the sight plan. It is an easy request to approve. Boardmember Stockover wanted to make a motion with a condition that both structures are removed– this will give more flexibility with Landmark Preservation. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 11, 2021 Shuff believes the application should be approved and not speculate. LaMastra agrees that there should be no speculation and thinks we should approve based on the site plan. Havelda stated that the board should not weigh too heavily on what another board would decide. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210001 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and , 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 with the following findings: The visual discernment of an additional 56 sf is minimal, The proposed structure complies with required setbacks and height and The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA210002 – APPROVED Address: 4218 S College Ave Owner: Francis Carrington Petitioner: Apex Signs and Graphics Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to install a second freestanding sign along a drive-thru lane. The maximum allowed is one. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting sign code allows for one sign. The request is that a call box is associated with a screen with images, which then becomes a sign. This proposal will not exceed the overall allotment for square footage. Drive-thru signs are allowed to be 100% visual display. The site is developed with mature landscape. Boardmember Meyer asked whether all Starbucks in town have two signs. Beals noted that the one on N College does. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Jennifer Craft, Apex Signs 505 N Link ln#2, FTC addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. LaMastra wanted clarification on the need for two signs. The applicant explained that it helps to expedite traffic. They don’t anticipate it to be used for advertising. There is a screen saver when not being used. Lawton asked if it was motion activated and the timing mechanisms. Applicant stated that there is a motion trigger underneath. She believes that it would be off during non-business hours. Chair Shields asked if there was anything in the land use code requiring signs to be shut off during non-business hours. Beals said he was not certain. Sign code is set up to not look at the message. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Chair Shields doesn’t see an issue as there are many drive-thrus in town with two signs. Boardmember Meyer thought the plans have two signs. Beals clarified that the original request came in for three signs. The applicants were willing to remove the first sign to bring it down to two. LaMastra thinks it will help with traffic flow and will be in support. Boardmember Lawton is also in favor. Boardmember Stockover wanted clarification on the initial design. In their letter the applicant would still prefer 3 signs. How does this differentiate between dual drive-thrus. Beals clarified that there is one freestanding sign allowed for each drive-thru lane. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 11, 2021 Boardmember Meyer likes the idea of increasing efficiency and speed in the drive thru. He wanted to make sure that this does not set precedence for having multiple signs in a drive thru. Shuff stated that since they are still in the allowable allotment. Meyer asked if there needs to be a change to the sign code. Beals stated that the code is meant to prevent clutter. LaMastra doesn’t think that this is setting precedence and each variance needs to be looked at individually. She wanted clarification on why there needs to be separation of the signs. Applicant responded that this is the standard signage for Starbucks. It could be custom but would involve more cost. Boardmember Lawton believes that traffic flow was a big reason behind the planning for this. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210002 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and 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 with the following findings: The approval is only for two signs; The total square footage for both free standing signs is 32sf; This site has been developed for many years and the landscaping is mature between the public right of way and the drive-thru lane. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED **The Board took a break at 10:18, resuming at 10:23** Roll call was taken and all boardmembers were present. 4. APPEAL ZBA210003 – APPROVED Address: 126 S. Whitcomb St Owner/Petitioner: Tara Gaffney-Berglund Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) and 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This a request for a 74 square foot addition to an existing 216 square foot garage to encroach 4 feet +/- into the required 5 feet side setback, and the eave encroaching 2.5 feet into the required 2.5 feet setback. This garage addition would continue the setback of the existing historic building. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting images of the structure and the request of the applicant to add to an existing structure in the back. The property has already gone through the LPC hearing. Karen McWilliams from Historic Preservation addressed the board. The owners previously submitted a request which was denied. The owners came back with another proposal which did meet standards. LPC commission did approve in the August 2020 meeting. Historic Preservation staff is supporting this request. Boardmember Lawton asked whether the current structure was leaning. Beals noticed the same and assumed that it would be fixed. McWilliams noted that an engineer came out and that it will be reenforced and corrected. Applicant Presentation: The applicant was unable to attend the hearing but wanted the Board to continue the hearing and agree it could be held remotely. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember LaMastra will be in support. Boardmember Meyer asked whether the existing roof is overhanging the property line. When the structure is fixed, will it push the roof over the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 11, 2021 Beals did not have the exact answer. Boardmember Shuff confirmed that it was called out and it looks like there will be about 4 inches. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210003 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and 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 with the following findings: There is little visibility of the addition from the public right of way, the existing structure has remained in place since 1932; the addition matches the setback/encroachments of the existing structure Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 5. APPEAL ZBA210004 – APPROVED Address: 211 Wood St Owner/Petitioner: Robert Kennedy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6), 4.8(F)(2)(b)(2) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to increase the maximum floor area of an accessory building from 600 square feet to 1056 square feet (+456 square feet), and to increase the maximum eave height from 10 feet to 11 feet 4 inches. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a request to build an accessory building and demolish the two existing accessory buildings. The accessory structure compared to a two car garage would be longer but same in width. There is a neighboring accessory building that abuts on the north side. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Rob Kennedy, 211 Wood St and Dick Anderson (architect) addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. The overall eave height should have been added to the other applications. The reason is to match the other structure. Boardmember Lawton asked whether the garage was being designed to have vehicle access from both sides. Applicant confirmed as such. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff appreciates the consolidation of buildings. He noted that this is double the allowed square footage and this seems like it might not be nominal and inconsequential. He is wondering about precedent as there are a lot of people in the area who might want to build a bigger garage. LaMastra wanted clarification on the rationale of the code to limiting the square footage vs the number of structures. Beals stated that the intent was to limit buildings looming into other properties. Chair Shields asked Beals about the maximum square footage in the zone district. Beals confirmed the footprint maximum is 600 sf. A carriage house is allowed 1000 sf of floor area. Applicant clarified that the focus of the project was for aesthetics and functionality. Boardmember Meyer believes it is nominal and inconsequential and is everyone’s best interest that there is one building vs multiple. He will be in support. Boardmember Lawton feels that it will be an improvement and would be in support Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA210004 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and 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 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 11, 2021 to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: The width as seen from the public right of way (both the street and alley) is the same size as a two-car garage; The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot.; The eave is lower than 13ft in height, which is permissible for accessory structures with habitable space; the proposed structure meets the required setbacks including solar setbacks. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Stockover and Lawton Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. **Boardmembers LaMastra, Shuff and Shields recused themselves from the next appeal**. Boardmember McCoy made a motion, seconded by Lawton to nominate Stockover as acting Chair. The motion was approved unanimously. 6. APPEAL ZBA210005 – APPROVED Address: 1981 Jessup Dr. Owner Jessup Farm Owners Association Petitioner: Tony Campana Zoning District: I Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum sign area of a single sided secondary sign by 28.35 square feet. This property is located in the residential sign district and considered part of a neighborhood service center which allows a secondary sign to be a maximum of 32 square feet. The proposed sign area is 60.35 square feet. . Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is relatively new development. There is already a freestanding sign. There has since been an update to the sign code which puts more of a limitation on signs. Allowable sign area is 55 sf. Proposal is for over 65 sf. Applicant Presentation: Applicants, Tony Campana, (Jessup Farms) and Randy Lerich, (Action signs) addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing remotely. Tony stated that this will be a great way to allow for better navigation. The same type of architecture and materials was used as the existing signs and believes it will be a true asset. Randy added that he was told by a previous zoning employee that the landscape feature doesn’t serve as signage. Beals stated that he was not aware of that. Boardmember Lawton asked about the lighting on the sign and whether the colors (black/red) would be used. Beals confirmed it is a digital sign and that the colors may change and that it is dimmable. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Meyer noted that this is an 80% increase of signage and does not see it as nominal. He noted that they are removing another sign and it is still over the maximum by 80%. Beals confirmed that there were 2 signs which were removed and will be replaced by the proposed sign. If the sign was designated as the primary sign, it would only be over by 5 sf. Boardmember Stockover noted that the primary sign is more artwork and not fully acting as a sign (although by code definition it is). He feels the request is appropriate and well done. Boardmember McCoy will be in approval. Boardmember Lawton thinks it is well done and does not have a problem with it. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve ZBA210005 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the general purpose for which the motion is requested is that the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 11, 2021 secondary sign in this location is very much acting like the primary sign and the primary sign is acting like an architectural element. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose equally well or better than the proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested with the following findings: The proposed sign is 5.35sf over the allowed primary sign; the existing freestanding sign is mostly transparent as it does incorporate a cabinet or background; the proposed sign is setback is 10ft from the property line. Yeas: Meyer, McCoy, Lawton and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED.  OTHER BUSINESS - none  ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 11:28 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 11, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210006 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 528 W Mountain Ave Owner: Misha and Jason Green Petitioner: Jordan Obermann Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(1)(g) Variance Request: This is request for a new single family detached home to use roof pitches of 16:12 where the maximum allowed is 12:12. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the original town map of 1873. The existing primary building was constructed in approximately 1885. This proposal is seeking to remove all existing structures and build new primary and accessory structures. The Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (N-C-M) includes standards to promote and preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. It was found that a roof pitch steeper than 12:12 did not meet the character of this area. However, those buildings that may have built steeper roof pitches prior to this standard being adopted, are allowed to match existing roof pitches. The neighborhood does have several varying roof pitches most in compliance with standard. There are also some roof pitches not in compliance. However, those out of compliance tend to be architectural features and not the primary roof. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The proposed roof pitch is an increase of a 4 inch rise. • The neighborhood includes varying roof pitches. 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 ZBA210006 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$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLP LWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHP HQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDUL DQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG PeWiWioneU oU PeWiWioneU¶V ReSUeVenWaWiYe must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner͛Ɛ Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner͛Ɛ Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Peƚiƚioneƌ͛Ɛ AddƌeƐƐ Owner͛Ɛ Name Peƚiƚioneƌ͛Ɛ Phone η Code Section(s) Peƚiƚioneƌ͛Ɛ Email Zoning District Additional Representative͛Ɛ Name Justification(s) RepƌeƐenƚaƚiǀe͛Ɛ AddƌeƐƐ Justification(s) RepƌeƐenƚaƚiǀe͛Ɛ Phone # Justification(s) RepƌeƐenƚaƚiǀe͛Ɛ Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 Choose One from List Additional Justification Additional Justification If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 528 W Mountain Avenue 80521 Misha & Jason Green N-C-M Jordan Obermann General Contractor (970) 412-9777 116 N. College Ave, Suite 5 (80524) jordan@forgeandbow.com Alex Henze (970) 797-2354 alex@forgeandbow.com Nominal / Inconsequential Equal or Better N/A See attached “Zoning Variance Request” Letter February 8th, 2021 116 N. College Ave, Suite 5 (80524) Division 4.8 / N-C-M / Section F.1.g Please see the Written Statement below along with the supplemental photos and plan set (including the site plan and elevations). Project Site: 528 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521b Zoning Variance Request - Written Statementb b b To whom it may concern,bb b We will be demolishing the existing home and constructing a new, single familyb residence at 528 W. Mountain Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521. We are seeking a varianceb on Division 4.8 - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District; Section F -b Developmental Standards; Part G - Roof Pitch.bb b The current Land Use Code stipulates that the maximum allowable roof pitch shall beb 12:12. We are proposing an architectural design that uses an 16:12 roof pitch with theb following justifications:bb b 1.The project will not diverge from Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way within the context of the neighborhood. b One of the purposes for the Land Use Code is to encourage new developmentb that is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. Roof pitch is onlyb one of numerous factors used to guide development towards certainb architectural design preferences that are in line with the communityłs goals. Inb every other category, the design of the proposed house meets the dimensionalb and development standards outlined in the code ŋ setbacks, width, sidewallb heights, entrance location, and front faÍade character. The plan is very sensitiveb to overall building mass and articulation in relation to surrounding homes;b arguably more so than many of the newly constructed houses in the vicinity. Theb proposed roof forms promote pedestrian orientation by use of gable directionb and faÍade set back. Taking these factors into consideration, the 16:12 roofb pitch is a nominal, inconsequential factor within the larger narrative of how thisb Project Site: 528 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521b project fits into the context of the neighborhood and the greater purpose of theb Land Use Code in this situation.bb b Additionally, the N-C-M neighborhood district is composed of a mix ofb architectural styles and features. The property owner requested a progressiveb approach to a Tudor Revival style home. Tudor homes are common throughoutb Fort Collins and within N-C-M districts. Understanding the potential negativeb consequences of a steeper roof, we designed the home to minimize overallb scale and height of the two story building while balancing faÍade elements inb order to celebrate what makes the Tudor architectural style unique. The City ofb Fort Collinsł Neighborhood Design Guidelines define Tudor houses as one ofb the core historical styles seen throughout Fort Collins. They are characterized byb a Ństeeply pitched roofń (Neighborhood Design Guidelines, Page 18, shownb below). Therefore, the proposed plans are of a similar level of design, quality,b and character to both the surrounding houses and Design Guidelines put forthb by the City; making the proposed roof style an inconsequential differentiator.b bb b b Project Site: 528 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521b To further illustrate, we have included photos of surrounding properties inb ŃExhibit Bń for reference. The houses photographed are all from N-C-M districtsb and depict the various roof and architectural features prevalent in theb neighborhood.bb b 2.The project promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than an alternative roof pitch.b b The 16:12 roof pitch allows the house to be in proportion to the surroundingb homes more so than an alternative roof pitch. Changing the roof pitch to 12:12b or less will result in taller second story wall heights, thus creating more massb bulking. By approving the variance of a steeper roof, we can better satisfy theb intention of the Land Use Code in improving the design, quality, and characterb of new construction in Fort Collins. The outcome of the design promotes theb purpose of the standards equally well, if not better.bb b The goal of the 16:12 roof structure is to honor the architectural character of ab traditional Tudor; a nod to the neighborhoodłs already eclectic collection of both newb and historic buildings. We appreciate your consideration of this variance request.bb b Sincerely,bb JķŊdanͯObeŊmannb Forge+Bow Dwellings, Ownerb 116 N. College Avenue, Suite 5b Fort Collins, CO 80524b (970) 412-9777b AC@;64E56D4C:AE:@?ZDKs>K&d,y/^d/E'KEͲ^dKZz,Kh^͕'Z'͕E^^KZz^dZhdhZ^&KZd,Zh>K&EtdtK^dKZz^/E'>Ͳ&D/>zZ^/Ed/>^dZhdhZtͬd,'Z'EϭϮϬ&d͘^^KZzh/>/E'Z^^ͺZ^^ͺZ^^ͺZ^^ͺ ϱϮϴt͘DKhEd/EsEh>Kd^/>Kd^/>Kd^/>Kd^/ͺϭϬ͕ϯϱϬ^&͘>>Kt>&>KKZZ>>Kt>&>KKZZ>>Kt>&>KKZZ>>Kt>&>KKZZ ;ϯϱйŽĨůŽƚĂƌĞĂͿ ͺϯ͕ϲϮϯ^&DyWZKWK^&>KKZZWZKWK^&>KKZZWZKWK^&>KKZZWZKWK^&>KKZZ&/Z^d&>KKZ сϮ͕ϲϭϬ^&^KE&>KKZ сϲϴϱ^&'Z' ;ϱϳϱ^&Ͳ ϮϱϬ^&&ZͿ сϯϮϱ^&dKd>dh>&>KKZZdKd>dh>&>KKZZdKd>dh>&>KKZZdKd>dh>&>KKZZ сϯ͕ϲϮϬ^&сϯ͕ϲϮϬ^&сϯ͕ϲϮϬ^&сϯ͕ϲϮϬ^&^^KZzh/>/E'^^KZzh/>/E'^^KZzh/>/E'^^KZzh/>/E'ͺϭϮϬ^&685 SFSECONDFLOORsh>d>Ktsh>d>KtZ/^>Ktsh>d>Kt2610 SFFIRST FLOOR575 SFGARAGE120 SFAreaϭϮΖͲϬΗϭϬΖͲϬΗ$5($&$/&8/$7,21$5($&$/&8/$7,21$5($&$/&8/$7,21$5($&$/&8/$7,21*5((1*5((1*5((1*5((102817$,102817$,102817$,102817$,1:02817$,1$9()257&2//,16&21/8" = 1'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]ALLOWABLE AREA SECOND FLOOR1/8" = 1'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]ALLOWABLE AREA FIRST FLOOR sh>d>Ktsh>d>Kt>K&dϴΖͲϲϭͬϮΗϯΖͲϬΗϭϮΖͲϭϭͬϮΗϮϰΖͲϳΗϭϬΖͲϰΗ ϱΖͲϯΗ ϭϭΖͲϲϭͬϮΗϭϮΖͲϭΗϵΖͲϲΗ ϭΖͲϱϭͬϮΗ ϳΖͲϯϭͬϮΗ ϯΖͲϰΗsh>d>KtϭϬΖͲϭϭϭͬϮΗ ϱΖͲϲϭͬϮΗ ϱΖͲϲϭͬϮΗϮϮΖͲϲΗϭϬΖͲϭϭϭͬϮΗ ϱΖͲϲϭͬϮΗ ϱΖͲϭΗϭϰΖͲϭϭΗ ϭϮΖͲϰϭͬϮΗϯϮΖͲϯΗϮϬΖͲϬΗ ϭϵΖͲϲΗ ϮϮΖͲϲΗϮϯΖͲϲΗϭϭΖͲϮϭͬϮΗϰϭΖͲϵΗϳΖͲϮΗϭϵΖͲϭΗďĂƌϭϴΗĚĞĞƉhW&29(5('&29(5('&29(5('&29(5('(175<(175<(175<(175<)2<(5)2<(5)2<(5)2<(53$175<3$175<3$175<3$175<08'08'08'08'.,7&+(1.,7&+(1.,7&+(1.,7&+(1/,9,1*/,9,1*/,9,1*/,9,1*Z&tƌĞĨ͘ĚƌǁƌϮϯΖͲϴΗϭϵΖͲϲϭͬϮΗ ϭϱΖͲϭϭͬϮΗ ϭϰΖͲϲΗ ϭϮΖͲϭϬΗ ϮΖͲϬΗϭϵΖͲϲΗϳΖͲϮϭͬϰΗE/,%5$5</,%5$5</,%5$5</,%5$5<sh>dKsďĞŶĐŚϭϱΖͲϮϭͬϮΗϲΖͲϲΗ ϭϲΖͲϬΗϮϱΖͲϰΗ ϳΖͲϭϭΗ ϭϱΖͲϴΗ0$67(50$67(50$67(50$67(50000&/26(7&/26(7&/26(7&/26(70%$7+0%$7+0%$7+0%$7+ϱΖͲϴΗϰϴΖͲϭϭΗϭΖͲϬΗϭΖͲϬΗWd/KdϭϬϬΖͲϬΗϱΖͲϮΗϭϰΖͲϮϭͬϮΗϮϭΖͲϲϭͬϮΗϯΖͲϵϭͬϮΗWd/KdϭϬϬΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϭϱΖͲϬΗϳϬΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗĨƌŽŶƚǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƌĞĂƌǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĨƌŽŶƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬϭϱΖͲϬΗϴϱΖͲϭΗƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ)/2253/$165281'B1')/225)/2253/$165281'B1')/225)/2253/$165281'B1')/225)/2253/$165281'B1')/225*5((1*5((1*5((1*5((102817$,102817$,102817$,102817$,1:02817$,1$9()257&2//,16&23/16" = 1'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]P- SECOND FLOOR -3/16" = 1'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]P- FIRST FLOOR - FIRST FLOOREL. = 100' - 0"T.O. WALLEL. = 118' - 2 7/8"SECOND FLOOREL. = 110' - 1 3/4">͘сϭϮϳΖͲϬΗDy,d͘tͬ^KE&>KKZKZDZ>͘сϭϮϴΖͲϬϭͬϰΗϭϮ͗ϭϮW/d,DyZKK&>/EhEZ^/D/>Z^/'EKE/d/KE^E&KZ^KE&>KKZtͬϭϮ͗ϭϮW/d,1 6 " / 1 2 "12" / 12"ϮϬΖͲϬΗ ϭϵΖͲϲΗ ϲΖͲϲΗ ϭϲΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬůŝŐŚƚǁĞůůϰΖͲϬΗZKK&>/EƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϭϱΖͲϬΗϳϬΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗĨƌŽŶƚǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƌĞĂƌǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗϭϱΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞϵϬΖͲϬΗϭϭϱΖͲϭΗĨƌŽŶƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬϭϱΖͲϬΗϴϱΖͲϭΗϭϱΖͲϬΗWHITCOMB STREETMOUNTAIN AVE.ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬWd/KWd/KŐĂƌĂŐĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϮϬΖͲϬΗ ϭΖͲϬΗϱΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϭϱΖͲϬΗϳϬΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗĨƌŽŶƚǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƌĞĂƌǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗϭϱΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞϵϬΖͲϬΗϭϭϱΖͲϭΗĨƌŽŶƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬϭϱΖͲϬΗϴϱΖͲϭΗϭϱΖͲϬΗWHITCOMB STREETMOUNTAIN AVE.ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬREMOVE 1-STORY HOUSEREMOVE GARAGEREMOVE ACCESSORY BLDG R1R2R212" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"6" / 12"16" / 12"8 1/2" / 12"8 1/2" / 12"R116" / 12"16" / 12"4" / 12"12" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"ĐŽǀĞƌĞĚǁĂůŬ6,7(3/$16833257,1*'$7$6,7(3/$16833257,1*'$7$6,7(3/$16833257,1*'$7$6,7(3/$16833257,1*'$7$*5((1*5((1*5((1*5((102817$,102817$,102817$,102817$,1:02817$,1$9()257&2//,16&21/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION - height comparison1" = 10'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]SITE PLAN -1" = 10'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]SITE PLAN - DEMO -1" = 10'-0" [RE: 1 / A4.1]ROOF PLAN - FIRST FLOOREL. = 100' - 0"T.O. WALLEL. = 118' - 2 7/8"SECOND FLOOREL. = 110' - 1 3/4">͘сϭϭϳΖͲϵΗKsZ>>,d͘KDZs,d͘^/t>>s,d͘>͘сϭϭϭΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ>͘сϭϬϵΖͲϮΗ>͘сϭϮϳΖͲϬΗ6" / 12"16" / 12"ĐŽǀĞƌĞĚǁĂůŬ16" / 12"ϴΖͲϬΗFIRST FLOOREL. = 100' - 0"T.O. WALLEL. = 118' - 2 7/8"SECOND FLOOREL. = 110' - 1 3/4"16" / 12"1 6 " / 1 2 "12" / 12"7 1/2" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"4" / 12"ϭϬΖͲϭϯͬϰΗϭϭΖͲϭϭͬϰΗFIRST FLOOREL. = 100' - 0"T.O. WALLEL. = 118' - 2 7/8"SECOND FLOOREL. = 110' - 1 3/4">͘сϭϮϯΖͲϵϭͬϴΗ>͘сϭϮϳΖͲϬΗ>͘сϭϭϳΖͲϵΗKsZ>>,d͘KDZs,d͘>͘сϭϭϭΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ^/t>>s,d͘16" 12"4 1/2" 12"16" 12"6" 12"12" / 12"6" / 12">͘сϭϬϭΖͲϮΗϮΖͲϬΗƐŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬϱΖͲϬΗFIRST FLOOREL. = 100' - 0"T.O. WALLEL. = 118' - 2 7/8"SECOND FLOOREL. = 110' - 1 3/4"6" 12">͘сϭϭϭΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ>͘сϭϬϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗ>͘сϭϮϳΖͲϬΗEdZzs,d͘^/t>>s,d͘s,d͘>͘сϭϭϭΖͲϭϭͬϰΗKsZ>>,d͘ĐŽǀĞƌĞĚǁĂůŬ(/(9$7,216B3(563(&7,9(6(/(9$7,216B3(563(&7,9(6(/(9$7,216B3(563(&7,9(6(/(9$7,216B3(563(&7,9(6*5((1*5((1*5((1*5((102817$,102817$,102817$,102817$,1:02817$,1$9()257&2//,16&21/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION -1/8" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATION -1/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION -1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION -PERSPECTIVE 1PERSPECTIVE 2 523 Loomis - NCM524 Loomis - NCM 631 Mulberry - NCM 615 Loomis - NCM 520 Loomis - NCM611 Loomis - NCM 520 Loomis - NCM Examples of NCM Tudors Examples of NCM Tudors (eastside) 705 Mathews Street - NCM 642 Smith Street - NCM 726 Mathews Street - NCM 520 Elizabeth Street - NCM 806 Peterson Street - NCM Examples of houses in NCM District - Variety of Roof Styles 420 W Mountain Ave - NCM 529 Mountain Ave - NCM 515 W Mountain - NCM 524 W Mountain Ave - NCM 602 W Mountain Ave - NCM 508 W Mountain Ave - NCM 519 W Mountain Ave - NCM 109 Sherwood Street - NCM 431 W Mountain Ave - NCM 327 Loomis Street - NCM 430 W Mountain Ave - NCM 412 Whitcomb - NCM Examples of houses in NCM District - Variety of Roof Styles Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 11, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1154 W Mountain Ave Owner: Elizabeth James Petitioner: Jeffrey Schneider Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5); 4.7(F)(2)(b)(1): 4.7(F)(2)(b)(3) Variance Request: This is a request to build a new accessory building that requires two variances. The first variance is for an accessory building with habitable space to exceed the maximum floor area by 43 square feet. The proposed accessory structure would total 643 square feet of floor area, where 600 square feet of floor area is permitted. The second variance is for the eave at the side lot line to exceed the maximum allowed of 14.5 feet by 8.5 feet totaling a 23-foot eave height due to the gabled end of the roof facing a side lot line. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is part of the Hensels subdivision. It was platted and annexed into the City in 1908. The primary building was built in 1945. The original plat included an alley along the north property line. This alley was vacated by the City in 1978. The entire portion of alley that abutted the property was given to the property to the north. The intent of the maximum eave height is to limit accessory structures from looming/peering into the backyard of an abutting property. The setback standards have a similar intent by including a maximum wall height of 18 feet. A structure is required to have an additional setback from the minimum 5 feet if the wall height is taller than 18 feet. As there is more often than not an alley associated with properties in the N-C-L zone district, the eave would usually face a side-lot line and the gable end would face an alley. For this property, the gabled end faces the side-lot line as the garage doors face the side street instead of an alley. The Land Use Code allows for accessory buildings to be built on residential properties. These types of structures are required to not exceed 600 square feet of floor area and still meet building setbacks and floor area maximums for the lot. There are no restrictions on the number of accessory structures or separation requirements. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good, • The visual discernment of an additional 43 square feet is minimal, • The proposed design does not exceed the allowable floor area for the overall lot and is in the rear- half. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 2 • The property does not have an alley and vehicle access is from the side-lot line. • The structure is setback the additional 3 feet from the east property line to meet the wall setback. 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 ZBA210007. 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 This unofficial copy was downloaded on Jul-18-2020 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com For additional information or an official copy, please contact Building and Zoning Office 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 11, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2021 Yorktown Ave Owner/Petitioner: Dustin Fisher Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance for an accessory structure to encroach 7 feet into the 15-foot rear setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed in 1965 as part of the College Fourth annexation. It later was platted in 1969 in the Lexington Green Third subdivision. The rear abutting properties include a single-family lot and field associated with a place of worship. The field offers little visual obstruction to the shopping center located on the west side of S. Taft Hill Road. Also, in the rear yard there is a tree in between the back of the house and the rear property line. Accessory buildings larger than 120 square feet or taller than 8 feet in height are required to obtain a building permit and meet required setbacks. The proposed structure is 144 square feet and 9.75 feet tall. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The tree in the rear yard prevents the structure meeting the rear yard setback. • The abutting property is an undeveloped field. • The structure is 9.75 feet tall. • the structure is 144 square feet in area. 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 and 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 ZBA210008. 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 2021 Yorktown Ave Dustin Fisher Self 80526 2021 Yorktown Ave Fort Collins C Dustin Fisher 970-413-2952 dfjf06@yahoo.com Fort Collins The subject greenhouse shed will be placed approximately 8.5 feet setback from the rear fence. The utility easement is 8 feet and the proposed placement of the shed will be at or 6 inches past this easement. We are not able to meet the 15 feet setback as there is a large mature tree that is between the rear fence and our home. Further, we have selected this location as we can tie in to electrical from our home at that placement and it will also help block the Safeway grocery store and passing vehicles on Taft Hill Road The proposed shed is of high quality cedar exterior 2/9/2021 1. Hardship 2. Equal to or better than Additional Justification The subject greenhouse shed will be placed 8 feet from rear fence. The utility easement is 8 feet from the rear fence and the proposed placement will not encroach this easement. We are unable to meet the 15 feet setback as there is a large mature tree that is between the rear fence and our home. In addition, we have selected this placement as we can tie into electrical in our home from that area and the shed will help block the Safeway grocery store and passing vehicles on Taft Hill. The proposed shed is of high quality cedar and blends in well with the surrounding neighborhood. Toll Free 1-888-658-1658 www.outdoorlivingtoday.com sales@outdoorlivingtoday.com 141 1/2” wide 136 1/2” Deep A: B: C: D: E: F: G: H: I: J: K: Floor Footprint = 141 1/2” wide x 136 1/2” deep Overall Width Incl. Roof Overhang = 155” Overall Depth Incl. Roof Overhang = 145” Overall Height Incl. Floor & Roof = 117” Height of Side Wall = 75” Interior Width frame to frame = 136 1/2” Interior Depth frame to frame = 131 1/2” Interior Height from floor = 102” Large Window Size (4) = 18 1/4”wide x 22 1/2” high Small Window Size (6) = 14”wide x 21” high Door Dimensions = 31 1/2” wide x 72” high A The SunShed Kit Includes: Specifications: Escape to the tranquility of your very own garden getaway. D C E J • 10 Functional Windows with Screens • 31” Wide Functional Dutch Door • “L” Shaped Full Wall Cedar Workbench • Polygal Polycarbonate Roof Windows - 6mm Thick •Western Red Cedar Construction • 7 Flower Boxes •Lap Sided Cedar Wall Panels •Cedar Roof with Shingles Already Attached •Panelized For Quick Assembly • Hardware Included (screws and nails). 12’x12’ SunShed Garden Building Item#SSGS1212 B Shipping Pkg#1 Size: 88”w x 52”d x 43”h Shipping Pkg#2 Size: 88”w x 48”d x 34”h Shipping Weight: = 1890 lbs I K Revised Jun 30/2020