Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/2022 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 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 AUGUST 11, 2022 8:30 AM LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Participation for this hybrid Land Use Review Commission meeting will be available online or by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Land Use Review Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Land Use Review Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93586524740. 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 August 11, 2022. 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 kkatsimpalis@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: 935 8652 4740. (Continued on next page) Land Use Review Commission Page 2 May 12, 2022 • 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 ZBA220023 Address: 524 Stover St. Owner/ Petitioner: Reyes Sarmiento Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.8(D)(6) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the total floor area square footage allowed on the lot by 1,202 square feet. The maximum permitted is 3,625 square feet. Also, for the accessory building to have a footprint of 832 square feet; the maximum allowed is 600 square feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA220025 Address: 1024 Ponderosa Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Steve Otis Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building that will encroach 8.5 feet into the 15-foot rear setback. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 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 kkatsimpalis@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. Please email any documents to nbeals@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate in person or by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the 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 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the city staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 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 JULY 21, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Commission member Meyer. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the June 9, 2022 Regular Hearing Minutes and the July 1 Special Meeting Minutes. The motion was adopted; Commission member Shuff abstained from voting. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220022 Address: 3418 Thames Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Georgia Aker Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) Project Description: This is a request to have a fence in the front yard taller than 4 feet high. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is just south of Birmingham Drive and north of Enfield Street. The request is to build a five- foot fence in the front yard; the Land Use Code allows a maximum front yard fence height of four feet. The location of the fence would be from the front wall of the house along the north extending to the street, and from the front wall of the garage to the street. The fence does not go across parallel to the street but runs along both north and south property lines. There are existing fences that enclose the LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 July 21, 2022 rear and side yards. The intent of the proposed fence is to elevate privacy and safety within the front yard. Beals continued with pictures of the property, showing the proposed fence as being already installed. Hence, this is a request to maintain the fence as currently built, as opposed to adjusting. Beals noted the Engineering Department does require a fence permit for any fences that are near the public right - of-way; the applicant was encouraged to check with the Engineering Department to se e if a fence permit is required. Beals explained that Engineering may need to issue a permit depending on the manner in which the fence was constructed, or at minimum in order to document the authorization of the fence. Beals explained that the only requirement that Engineering usually enforces, regardless of whether the fence is parallel or perpendicular to the public right-of-way, is that a fence is stepped back at least two feet from the back of sidewalk. The existing fence was installed within the requi red two feet, so there may need to be adjustments in order to obtain the permit. Describing the fence, Beals described it as being a three-rail picket fence with spacing in between the slats. The spacing is large enough to be able to see through the fence but still offer some privacy and division between the properties. Chair La Mastra asked to clarify that the Commission would not be approving/denying the encroachment into the two-foot setback from rear of sidewalk, and that would instead be determined by Engineering. The Land Use Review Commission is only looking at the variance rel ated to fence height. Beals confirmed that the Land Use Review Commission is only looking at the height. Application Presentation: Applicant Georgia Aker, 3418 Thames Ct. addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Aker stated that she had lived at the current address for more than 25 years and lives a very quiet life and wants her peace and enjoyment of her property to be respected. Aker explained that she had experienced numerous issues with tenants in a neighboring rental property, including barking dogs, harassment, and trespassing/vandalism. Aker stated that she eventually installed security cameras on her property and contacted Police in an effort to address the conflict she was experiencing with her neighbors. On the other side of the house, Aker described a situation wherein the neighbors would park their vehicles stacked out into the cul-de-sac, which resulted in her driveway being blocked. She spoke with the neighbors numerous times and attempted mediation in 2002. The parking issues continued into at least 2016, and the problem continues with the current residents. Due to these issues, Aker explained that she decided to install fences in order to create division between the two neighboring properties as a means to create peace and quiet within her own property. Aker stated that since the fence has gone up, the unpleasantries have largely stopped. She stated that if she were made to lower the fence to four feet, the unpleasantries would be begin again. Aker has no plans to move and just wants peace. Commission member Meyer asked the applicant if they were aware that a permit was required for the installation of a fence. Applicant Aker indicated she called a landscape who was referred by a friend and assumed they would have applied for the proper permits. Aker stated she did call the Zoning Department prior to installation and was not made aware of either the four-foot height requirement or the need for an Engineering permit. Audience Member Kerri Allison, 3424 Thames Ct., addressed the Commission and agreed to participate in a hybrid format. Allison stated that as a resident, she was compelled to ask what the repercussions would be for building a structure without first obtaining the proper documentation. Chair La Mastra answered the options would be to either correct the physical structure to ensure compliance, or to come before the Land Use Review Commission and seek a variance. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 July 21, 2022 Allison continued, stating that while she did not feel the fence in question should grant Ms. Aker permission to toss items over it that she does not feel compelled to have to contend with, and in some sort of attempt to satisfy her discontent with the neighbors and the neighborhood, Allison stated for the record that she did feel the fence was aesthetically pleasing; it causes no discontent or disruption with the adjoining neighbors nor the neighborhood. With that, Allison urged the Commission approve the variance request and maintain the fence as it is. Commission Discussion: Chair La Mastra stated the fence is aesthetically pleasing and seems to have quelled some of the discontent in the neighborhood without causing additional strife. La Mastra appreciated staff pointing out that there is the ability to see through the fence, thus minimizing safety concerns of those travelling along the sidewalk. La Mastra stated her preference to approve the request and maintain the fence at a five-foot rather than four-foot height. Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments of La Mastra, and asked Beals if the Commission and subsequent motion needed to stipulate anything about the Engineering department. Beals indicated we can add a stipulation, but it is not a requirement, as Engineering would be following up and reaching out to the applicant anyway. Vice-Chair Shuff agreed with previous comments offered by La Mastra and Lawton, adding that the transparency of the fence will allow for pedestrian and vehicle safety within the cl-de-sac. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA220022 based on the presentations by staff and testimony of the applicant, as well as based on findings under section 2.10.4(H) to recommend approval with the condition a fence permit is approved by the City Engineering department. Findings include the variance is not detrimental to the public good, provided a fence permit is approved; the transparency of the fence is designed to allow visual from the ground to the top of the fence; the increase fence height is only located along the side property lines. 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: Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra, McCoy, Lawton Nays: - Absent: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 2. APPEAL ZBA220023 – POSTPONED Address: 524 Stover St. Owner/ Petitioner: Reyes Sarmiento Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the total floor area square footage allowed on the lot by 942 square feet. The maximum permitted is 3,625 square feet. *Prior to hearing Appeal ZBA220024, Vice Chair Shuff stated for the record that he has previously performed work with the applicant’s contractor [Keira Harkin],but does not currently have current work with them. Because of this, Shuff does not believe that he currently has any conflict of interest in hearing the appeal. 3. APPEAL ZBA220024 Address: 409 S Grant Ave. Owner: Ashley & Jordan Radin Land Use Review Commission Page 4 July 21, 2022 Petitioner: Keira Harkin, General Contractor Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(1)(d) Project Description: This is a request to have a portion of the second floor overhang the lower side exterior walls. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on S Grant Ave. just south of W Magnolia St. and north of W Mulberry St. The property is an interior parcel onto the block. The site plan provided in the applicant materials shows the existing conditions of the property; the request is to build an addition on the back, a portion of which would include a second-floor overhang. The overhang necessitates the request for a variance. Presenting drawings of the proposed side elevations, Beals described the window/dormer element that would overhang the first floor. The Land Use Code within Conservation Districts (N-C-M, N-C-L, N-C- B) have certain design standards to preserve and help architecture relate to Old Town architecture vocabulary. Part of this is not to allow overhangs of the second floor over first floor. Beals stated there are some exceptions to this standard, giving the example of a flat-roof porch which would have a second-story deck on top. Beals commented that in this case, the portion overhanging is very small in size, similar in size to the staircase inside or the width of a chimney of fireplace projection. Beals stated the intent of the code is to prevent the entire second floor from overhanging, not necessarily small elements. Beals presented drawings of the existing and proposed east elevations, noting the placement of the proposed window overhang. Continuing with pictures of the existing property when viewed from the sidewalk, Beals noted the distance of the proposed addition as well as existing overhanging landscaping would help to minimize the visibility of the proposed overhang. Chair La Mastra noted that when looking at the existing east elevation, there appears to be an overhang or projecting on the right side of the structure. Beals clarified the element to be an existing roof eave. Commission member Lawton asked to clarify that the bulk of the addition is not in question, it is just the overhanging window included in the proposed addition. Beals confirmed that to be accurate. Application Presentation: Applicant representative Keira Harkin, General Contractor, 201 E Oak St., addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Keira stated she would be the first to admit that of the many Land Use Codes they try to adhere to, the second-story overhang requirement was missed. Harkin explained that from a building standpoint, the goal was to bridge the existing vaulted ceiling to the addition with a second-story hallway. In creating the hallway space, the intent is to create a new office space to accommodate increased remote work within the home. The projection of the window helps to create more usable office space as well as bridge the gap between existing and new construction. From an aesthetic standpoint, the articulation with the cantilever helps to break up a long wall, and from a building standpoint it helps to join new and existing roof structures —the construction of which is not visible in the plans. Harkin also noted that from streetside, the window is hidden from view as depicted in the photos shown by Beals. Commission member Lawton asked Harkin to confirm that the proposed window overhang is located on the driveway side of the home. Harkin confirmed, stating that the setback is 13 feet, and the cantilever is 2 feet deep and 8 feet wide. Chair La Mastra commented that in the plans it appeared that Land Use Review Commission Page 5 July 21, 2022 the cantilever was noted to be 3 feet deep; Harkin stated the eave is 3 feet deep but the cantilever itself is 2 feet deep. Applicant Ashley Radin, 409 S Grant Ave., addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the m eeting in a hybrid format. Radin stated that Harkin had provided an accurate summation of the request. Radin commented that she had toured the surrounding neighborhood and noted that several of the homes do have existing cantilevers similar to that being proposed; pictures of some of these were provided in the applicant materials for comparison. Because the window would be 80-100 feet back from streetside the visual impact would be minimal, and the gains in livability outweigh the slight variance to standar d. Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Shuff stated his opinion that the request was reasonable, noting that the window is well - removed from the street and is behind the primary structure, and is projecting into the driveway rather than a setback. Shuff commented that because of the manner in which the narrow Old Town lots are viewed from the streets, the addition itself will be only slightly visible. Shuff agreed with the staff recommendation to approve the request. Commission member Meyer commented he could definitely support this request, stating that the code section intent revolves around architectural character and trying to prevent cantilevering of an entire second floor. The proposed window cantilever is a small and nominal section of floor which c reates additional character of the home and speaks to the character of the home and surrounding neighborhood. Meyer stated his support for the request. Commission member Lawton commented the floor plans provided by the applicant help to describe the manner in which the cantilever helps to create additional usable space, which will be good for the residents. Lawton stated his support for the request. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220024 based on the following findings: The granting of the modification of standard is not detrimental to the public good; the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code 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. Approval is based on the findings that the upper story overhand projects 3 feet from the lower story; the overhang setback is 14 feet; the width of the overhang is 10 feet. Yeas: Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra, McCoy, Lawton Nays: - Absent: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS Beals announced to the Commission that Council approved two appointments to the Land Use Review Commission, which will fill our current vacancies. Those individuals will be joining the Commission for the August hearing. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 9:09am Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT AUGUST 11, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220023 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 524 Stover St. Owner/Petitioner: Reyes Sarmiento Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)2; 4.8(D)(6) Variance Request: This is a request to exceed the total floor area square footage allowed on the lot by 1,202 square feet. The maximum permitted is 3,625 square feet. Also, for the accessory building to have a footprint of 832sf; the maximum allowed is 600 sf. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the original town plat of 1873. The original primary structure was constructed in 1905. It is unclear how many changes have occurred since original construction. In 2013 two building permits were applied for. One permit was for the primary structure and increased the floor area from 3,492 sf to 3,995 sf. The other permit was for a two-car garage with one-car carport that is 832 sf. In 2013 the floor area requirements did not include carports and allowed a higher floor area. In time the house permit was issued a letter of completion. However, the work included in the garage permit was stalled and the permit expired. Later in the 2013, the floor area standards did change. The changes resulted in the primary structure being over the allowable floor area. Therefore, a new permit cannot be issued for the proposed garage to be built. The primary structure is 3,995sf - this includes a portion of the attic that was finished. The proposed garage was thought to be 572 sf, however the code changes define floor area to include the carport resulting in the proposed square footage to be 832 sf. The total square footage with existing and proposed is 4,827 sf. 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 existing increase to the primary building came from finishing the attic space, not increasing the building size. • The proposed garage is one story in height and meeting required setbacks. • The carport area is currently used as a parking space. • The proposed garage was issued a permit and construction started resulting in an unfinished building. 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 ZBA220023. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJ GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQPD\JUDQW YDULDQFHVZKHUHLWILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the publicgood $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV  E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW VHOILPSRVHG   WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV UHTXHVWHG  WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ 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 __________________________________________ tZ/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ 524 Stover Street 80524 Reyes Sarmiento 970-691-4239 reyessf5@msn.com 06/06/22 Reyes Sarmiento 3. Nominal and inconsequential 2. Equal to or better than Additional Justification Reyes Sarmiento 524 Stover Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-691-4239 Reyessf5@msn.com ______________________________________________________________________________ Main Office 524 Stover Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Cell: (970) 691-4239 e-mail: reyessf5@msn.com June 6, 2022 City of Fort Collins Zoning Attn: Missy Nelson I am writing to ask for a variance to finish the construction of a detached garage in the back of our property at 524 Stover Street. The original permit was applied for and granted in August of 2013. Due to financial hardship (my daughter tore her ACL in her knee, twice within a 2 ½ year span) and we were still finishing up items from a previous permit, the work on the garage was delayed and actually stopped. I have included a picture of the foundation already in place which was inspected at that time before we stopped working on it. The property to the South of us has two separate garage/storage units, and the property two house from us on the North has a similar two car garage. So it seems like we would just be falling in line with what’s already existing in the area. Basically, I would just like the permission to continue with the building of the garage at this time. Sincerely, Reyes Sarmiento From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Reyes Sarmiento 524 Stover St. Date:Friday, August 5, 2022 11:27:33 AM From: Karyn Hendricks <karynski3@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:22 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: reyessf5@msn.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reyes Sarmiento 524 Stover St. I have been a neighbor of the Sarmiento family for many years living at 528 Stover St, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Receiving this letter from what I understand for a denial of this family building a garage. They need a garage very much. They have a larger family and most of the time they park on Stover St. Honestly they are fantastic, kind neighbors. In this neighborhood there are multiple lots with larger homes, garages and even outbuildings and separate living areas. They are wanting to build a garage for their nice vehicles from my understanding. The alley behind our homes on Stover does not always make homeowners on this block safe. They have only improved their property since they bought their house. Which in turn helps the whole block in itself. Denying them covered parking is not in my viewpoint going to make their home too big for the property. Also, creating a safer entryway to the house. Alleviating so many cars parked on Stover in this block. Everywhere you look in Old Town area they have multiple buildings. Even campers and more where people live. What they want to build is only a plus for myself and others on the block. Thank you. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT AUGUST 11, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220025 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1024 Ponderosa Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Steve Otis Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This is a request to build an accessory building that will encroach 8.5 feet into the 15-foot rear setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was part of the Alvin Miller annexation in 1964. At the time of annexation, it also received development approval to construct a subdivision of single detached housing. The primary structure was built a year later in 1965. Since 1965 the property has required a 15-foot rear-yard setback. Additionally, there is 6-foot utility easement that overlaps the 15-foot setback. The proposed request is to place a shed 6.6 feet into the require 15-foot setback. The abutting neighbor to the east has heavily vegetated landscaping along the property line limiting view into their property. Also, a mature tree in the applicants rear yard limits the location of a new structure. 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 • There is a mature tree limiting the placement of the shed. • The abutting neighbor has thick vegetation at the shared property line limiting the view of the proposed shed. • The proposed location does not encroach on the easement. 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 ZBA220025. 1 Rob Bianchetto From:jso <pda726@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:33 PM To:Zoning Cc:Steve otis Subject:[EXTERNAL] Application for variance Attachments:app request signature page.pdf Categories:LURC, Rob Mightthisserveasawrittenstatement? Iownthepropertyat1024PonderosaDr.Iamretiredandtoprotectmywife'shealth,andkeepthedustoutofthe houseIneedaplacetowork.WhileIwasplanningthisIstartedwithasatelliteviewofthepropertyandyoucouldtell rightawaytherewasonespotfortheshop.Iconsideredthenicenewveryprivateareathatitwouldcreateonthefront side.Therequired15'setbackis,firstofall,onethirdofmybackyardandwhenyouputallofthatbehindtheshedit takesawaythenicespaceandjambsitupwithatreeandwastesthespacebehindtheshed.TheonlyexplanationIget is"LDR"butnothingexplainsthe15'requirementhere.Theonlyonebeingaffectedbythisisme.Myneighborsdonot care,whydoesthecity? HowandwheredoIneedtosendthe300.00fee?