Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/10/2005FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — March 10, 2005 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall Phone: (H) 224-4029 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 10, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Steve Remington BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Ann Marie Gage, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Miscio made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 10, 2005 meeting. McBride seconded the motion. The motion passed with Dickson abstaining. ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2497 - Approved Address: 134 N. Roosevelt Ave. Petitioner: Jay Henke Zone: NCL Section: 4.7 (E) (4) Background The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 12 feet to 6 feet in order to construct a second story addition. The approximate height of the existing house is 21-23 feet high at the peak. The proposed addition will be 31 feet to the top of the wall along the alley side of the lot. The existing house is already at a 6 foot setback from the north lot line, so the building will not be any closer to the alley as a result of the addition. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The existing house is currently at a 6 foot setback. The existing square footage of the home is approximately 630 square feet. The proposed square footage will be approximately 2500 square feet. The owner would like to increase the size of the home as the family is growing. Since the wall in question is adjacent to an alley instead of another lot, the intent of the setback requirement is met. Staff Comments It can probably be argued that the intent of the side setback requirement is met "equally well or better" in this case because the alley is abutting the side lot line rather than another lot. Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes identified the property and the alley along the north lot line pertaining to the request to reduce the required setback. This property resides in the NCL zone which requires a minimum 5 foot side yard setback when the wall does not exceed 18 feet in height along the lot line. Once the wall of the building exceeds 18 feet then additional setback is required based on the additional height. The proposed house would need a 12 foot setback. The existing house is 6 feet from lot line along the alley. The second floor will be constructed on top of the existing wall. The setback will remain the same, although the height of the building will be increased. Remington asked for the alley width. Barnes stated that the alley was 20 feet wide. Remington asked about relevant zoning changes because of the nonconforming garage along the lot line. Barnes stated that the garage was built either when there was no zoning code or there were different setback requirements. Applicant participation Jay Henke, 134 N. Roosevelt Ave., addressed the Board. Henke stated that he needed more space in order to accommodate a family. Although a basement is present, it is not full height. Henke stated that he tried to create a structure that would fit in with the neighborhood i.e. Craftsman style bungalow. The proposed structure would be a story and a half. Henke stated that the zoning code would be met on the south side. Foundation would be added to the existing ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 3 foundation and the addition would be build straight up from the existing wall. The home has no historical designation. Henke stated that the structure would not infringe upon neighbors because of the 20 foot alley. Hall asked about the impact of the addition on the garage. Henke replied that there would be no .impact to the garage, since the garage is difficult to use because of its size. Henke explained that he had reviewed other options, but did not want to disturb mature landscaping. Board discussion Remington stated support for the variance using the "equal to or better than" standard because the alley allows for light, ventilation, space and access between properties. Hall agreed. Donahue asked for the lot to floor area ratio. Barnes stated that the NCL zone requires a lot area to floor area ratio of 3:1. Barnes stated that the existing house, garage and proposed addition fell within the allowable ratio. Barnes clarified that basement floor area is not used in this calculation. McBride asked about the remaining footage allowed. Barnes stated that the floor area of all detached buildings on the property greater than 120 square feet is used in the calculation. Discussion followed. Remington made a motion to approve the appeal using the "equal to or better than" standard, finding no detriment to the public good. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Remington Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2498 - Approved Address: 2712 W Lake St. Petitioner: Scott Smith Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(C) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow the construction of a 10 x 22 enclosed patio. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The house sits on a comer lot with the front door facing the longer of the two street frontages. Prior to a code change several years ago, and at`the time the home was constructed, the legal front yard would have been the shorter of the two street frontages, regardless of the placement of the front door. At sucri time, the now legal rear yard would have been the side yard with a side yard setback requirement of 5 feet and what is now the legal front yard would have been considered a corner side yard. ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 4 Staff Comments: None Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes identified the property on the comer of Fleetwood Ct. and W. Lake St. Although the house faces W. Lake St., the frontage along Fleetwood Ct. would have been considered the legal front lot line prior to the recent code change. The frontage along Fleetwood Ct. is narrower than the lot frontage on W. Lake St. Regardless of which way the house faced, prior to the code change the north lot line would have been the side lot line and a 5 foot setback would have been required. Under the current code, the direction that the house faces is now the legal front lot line. This house faces W. Lake St. which means that the rear lot line is along the north lot line at the back of the house, where the enclosed patio is proposed. The variance request is to reduce the rear lot line from 15 feet to 9 feet. Applicant Participation: Scott Smith, 2712 W. Lake St., addressed the Board. Smith petitioned on behalf of the residents of the property. The proposed enclosed patio was designed to increase the footage of their home, as well as enhance the beauty and appeal of the home. The code changed after the plans were designed. Smith described the area where the patio would be enclosed from the hard foundation structure, about 70 inches out and following the existing cement line. Hall asked for a description of the enclosure. Smith described that the enclosure would be a walled in, mostly glass enclosure with a solid roof that matches the existing roof line. Remington asked if the existing concrete slab was currently at the 9 foot setback. Smith stated that it was. Board Discussion: Barnes stated that the back comer of the house sits 13 feet from the rear property line. The house was built prior to the code change. Under the old code, no variance would be required because the setback would have been 5 feet. Under the current code, the house would have had to been built closer to W. Lake St. Remington asked Eckman if the issue of nonconformance because of the code change constituted a hardship. Eckman agreed that the hardship justification could be used in this particular instance. Hall stated that the room could be built along the east side of the house, as another option. Remington stated that a hardship or unique situation existed. Hall agreed. Dickson made a motion to approve the appeal based on the hardship of the house nonconforming because of the code change and without detriment to the public good. Remington seconded the motion, and noted that the Board had dealt with similar comer lot situations. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Remington Nays: None ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 5 5. APPEAL NO. 2499 — Tabled until next month Address: 808 Remington St. Petitioner: Paul Beisman Zone: NCB Section: 4.8 (D)(6)(c&d) Background The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 15 feet in this zoning district to 3 feet and reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet in this zoning district to 3 feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardshi The lot is only 2850 square feet with very little rear yard as is. The rear yard will actually be 7 feet with only a portion of that being taken up with an exterior open stairway from the second floor which is located 3 feet from the rear property line. The existing house is only 880 square feet with a proposed addition of 1626 square feet providing a total finish 2506 square feet. Staff Comments None Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes stated that the property resided within the NCB zone and required a lot area to floor area ratio of 1:1, so this property is allowed 2850 square feet of floor area. The floor area of the house with the proposed addition is within the allowable area. The property is adjacent to an alley along the south side, however the existing house is already along the alley and the addition is proposed along the opposite side. The house currently sits a zero setback along the rear lot line. The proposed addition would be 7 feet from the rear lot line and 3 feet from the side lot line. Hall asked for clarification of the NCB zone. Barnes described the NCB zone as a "Neighborhood Conservation Buffer" zone for mixed use that included single family dwellings, limited multi -family dwellings, and limited commercial uses. Applicant Participation: Paul Beisman, 808 Remington St., addressed the board. Beisman stated hardships to be the size of the lot and the lack of a rear yard. Beisman stated that the proposed addition would be consistent with the one and two level current structure of the house. Beisman stated that he did not want to build along the zero setback on the east side and that the proposed addition would not encumber his neighbor's living space. Board Discussion: Remington stated that he struggled with this appeal because the hardship seemed self-imposed since the lot was split off and is small, and yet a nonconforming house already exists on the small lot. ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 6 Hall asked Beisman to describe the addition. Beisman stated that the property was his primary residence and that the addition would include bedrooms as well as a garage for covered parking. Miscio asked Beisman how close the addition would be from his neighbor's structure on the north side. Beisman answered that his neighbor's second entrance is on the south side and is approximately 10 to 15 feet away. Beisman's draftsman concurred. Miscio asked if the neighbor had concerns about the proposed addition. Beisman stated that he had open communication with his neighbor, Clint Reeves, about the addition. McBride asked about the proximity of the addition to a tree. Beisman stated that the tree was planted on the property line and would be removed. Miscio asked Eckman if a self-imposed hardship is a hardship. Eckman replied no. Miscio stated difficulty in finding justification for a hardship or "equal to or better than" code standard. Hall agreed. Remington asked if the setback variance would be nominal and inconsequential to the neighborhood. Hall replied that he did not consider a 15 foot setback reduced to 3 feet nominal. Miscio asked Beisman about afternative plans. Beisman replied that the existing structure of the house is currently nonconforming since it is 7 feet from the east setback, rather than the 15 feet required by the current code. The middle of the house is currently 15 feet from the east setback. Miscio stated that he was more concerned about the north setback. Beisman stated that he was trying to accommodate usable space for covered parking. Beisman's draftsman stated that the 5 foot north setback could be met. Beisman added that the east setback variance request would include 3 feet of an outdoor staircase. Remington asked Barnes about the building envelope for the lot. Barnes stated that the lot is 50 feet deep and 57 feet wide with a 15 feet front and rear yard setback requirement. The building envelope would be 20 feet by 47 feet. McBride asked if the addition was only impacting garages not living spaces. Beisman agreed. Remington asked if a second story addition would require larger setbacks. Barnes stated that only if the wall height exceeded 18 feet. Barnes stated that the north wall height is 18 feet and that the east wall height does not factor into rear setback requirements. Beisman stated that the addition would not impact the living areas of his neighbors. The Board discussed the finding of a hardship and the nonconforming house. McBride stated that Beisman could legally build a 1200 square foot addition, but is asking for a 1600 square foot addition. Hall stated that Beisman is trying to put a large addition on a small lot with significant setback issues. Remington asked if the addition could be scaled back to comply with the setbacks. Barnes stated that the appeal could be tabled since the petitioner offered to comply with the north setback. McBride recommended that the design be modified so that the room sizes remain, yet the setbacks be adjusted for a smaller variance. Dickson agreed that the structure could be reconfigured to work within the setbacks. Remington asked the Board to clarify concerns so that the petitioner can return with revised plans. Miscio requested plans that fit within the current code, with the exception of the exterior stairwell. Barnes commented that the code allows an open outdoor stairway to encroach into a ZaA March 10, 2005 Page 7 rear setback up to five feet. If the proposed stairway were 10 feet from the rear setback, no variance would be required. Beisman's draftsman asked the Board to clarify their position. The Board was agreeable to have a stairway 10 feet and the structure at 13 feet from the property line. Beisman's draftsman stated that that would make it difficuft to fit a car in the garage and asked to have 2 feet toward Remington, keeping the north setback at 5 feet. The Board agreed, but added that if alternatives do not work, be able to explain why not at next appearance before the Board. Barnes added that 21 feet 4 inches is adequate to park a car in the garage and maintain a 13 foot front setback. Miscio made a motion to table the appeal until next month for the reasons stated in the Board's discussion. McBride seconded the motion. The motion has been tabled until next month's meeting. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Remington Nays: None 6. APPEAL NO. 2500 - Approved Address: 1216 W. Mountain Ave. Petitioner: Eric Smith Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Backaround The variance would allow the construction of a second story addition on to an existing ranch style home. The top of the roof exceeds 18 feet. The peak is 26 feet above grade, thus requiring a 10 feet west side yard setback. The house currently sits at 6 feet 1 inch from the west side yard. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The proposed architectural style of the home better suits the neighborhood from the street facing fagade creating an appearance of a less dominant roof line. The house adjacent on the west side is a single story home and the proposed addition only shows two new windows on the second story. Staff Comments None Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The existing west lot line is at a 6 foot 1 inch setback. Based on the height of the wall of the proposed addition, a 10 foot setback would be required. ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 8 Applicant Participation: Eric Smith, 1216 W. Mountain Ave., addressed the Board. Smith provided a letter from the adjacent property owner. Smith stated that the houses on either side of his property have similar cross gable construction, where the roof line parallel to the street is raised above the roofline perpendicular to the street. The proposed addition would be to the rear of the house. Smith stated that an alternative solution would be to build walls up on the existing walls. The pitch of the roof could be changed. Smith stated that the comer of the triangular wall is nonconforming. Smith stated that the current design would cause less light obstruction on the affected property to the west than raising the walls to the legal limit. Smith stated that the design attempted to preserve the existing features of the front of the house and historical integrity. Smith stated that there was potential to cut the comers of the nonconforming wall, but that would result in engineering difficulties because the ridge beam could not rest on the outside walls. Hall asked Smith to detail how much wall area would be noncompliant. Smith stated that the proposed wall would be 3 feet higher than the 23 foot high wall to the left of his property because it covered an existing slab of a longer length. Bames stated that the top 5 feet and 2 inches would be in excess of what is allowed. Smith stated that the area does not contain any interior space, but is due to the ridge beam engineering. Remington asked if the pitch would remain consistent with the neighborhood. Smith stated that it would. Miscio asked how much height the addition would add to the house. Smith stated that the addition would add 5 feet above the existing roofline. Miscio asked if Smith had spoken with his neighbors about the addition. A letter from the neighbor was provided. Bames read the letter from neighbors, Higgins and Binkley, stating no objections. Board Discussion: Miscio stated that the addition would conform to the neighborhood and incorporate aesthetic compatibility. McBride stated that the design could be changed with additional roof engineering, but since a small proportion of the house extends above the setback requirement it seems nominal and inconsequential. Remington stated that the peak should be considered nominal and inconsequential based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. McBride made a motion to approve the appeal as a nominal and inconsequential issue that was not detrimental to the public. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Remington Nays: None ZBA March 10, 2005 Page 9 7. APPEAL NO. 2501 - Approved Address: 1301 Town Center Dr. Petitioner: Mikal Torgerson Zone: LIE Section: 4.1(D)(2)(b) and (d) Background The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along the front lot line (along Town Center Drive) from 16 feet to 14 feet and would reduce the required street side setback along Town Center Court from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow a new house to be constructed on the lot without encroaching into the 150 foot oil well setback limit. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments None Staff Presentation A letter from a neighboring property owner, Cap Smith, was read. Barnes addressed Smith's comments in the letter pertaining to the Hearthfire Design Review Board. Barnes was unaware if the petitioner had presented the issue to the Hearthfire Design Review Board, but stated that the issue was irrelevant in regard to the city, since city codes and local covenants were independent. Concerning Smith's comment about garages, the proposed garage is side loading and so the neighborhood's 20 foot setback does not apply. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property is on the comer of Town Center Ct. and Town Center Dr. An oil well is present behind the property. The development plan requires that structures cannot be built within 150 feet of the oil well. Miscio asked how long the oil well could be expected to remain. Eckman stated that the oil well will remain as long as it produces oil. Applicant Participation: Mikal Torgerson, 223 N. College Ave., addressed the Board. Torgerson stated that the property is subject to two oil well arcs and a house was designed using recorded city documents to comply with all setback requirements. A land survey after the house design was done showed that the lot shape and oil well setbacks were actually different than shown on the recorded documents. The house was designed as a one story structure in order to maintain lake views for the neighbors. Torgerson stated that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good because the setback variance would be imperceptible. The unusual lot shape and oil well make unusual hardships for the property. In addition, the recorded PUD documents were in conflict with one another, as well as with surveyed results. The site plans are different between the plat, site plan ZeA March 10, 2005 Page 10 and engineering plans in terms of the lot size, shape and boundaries. Torgerson stated that the oil well arcs shown on the site plan are also incorrect. Hall asked about adjacent properties. Torgerson stated that the adjacent lot is essentially unbuildable. The owner of the lot in question also owns the adjacent lot. John Walls, owner of the property, addressed the Board. Walls stated that he purchased the lot in question in order to avoid a two-story house being built. Walls stated that he had spoken with neighbors, who were positive about his plans to build a ranch style home. Hall asked if Walls had approval from the homeowners' association. Walls stated that he had discussed his plans and received a positive response. Board Discussion: McBride stated that this was a good case for hardship because of the uniquely shaped property encumbered by oil well, compounded by recorded documents that disagree on property boundaries and where the oil well resides. Miscio agreed. Dickson stated that it appeared that the property lines were substantially setback from the curbs, creating the appearance of more than a proper setback. Hall asked if the oil well setback is inflexible. Eckman stated that the oil setback is regulated by the state for safety reasons. McBride made a motion to approve the appeal based on the hardship standard, finding that it is not detrimental to the public good. McBride added that the intent of the setback requirements are met since the property adjoins public space. McBride stated that the hardship includes an irregular lot shape that is encumbered by an oil well easement, as well as recorded documents that disagree. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, McBride, Miscio, Remington Nays: None 8. APPEAL NO. 2502 — Tabled until next month Address: 1113 W. Olive St. Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(2) and (3) 9. Other Business None Meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. ��/ AL 143 all, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Zoning Board of Appeals • c/o Zoning Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 • February 22, 2005 Re: Variance for Lot 51 in the Hearthfire P.U.D. Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, This letter is intended to formally request a variance to the front and side setback requirements as approved in the Hearthfire P.U.D. The P.U.D. as approved requires a 16' front setback and a 15' side setback for comer lots such as the lot in question. This lot however is unique due to the exceptional physical characteristics of the site as approved. Lot 51 is North and West of an existing oil well pump. State laws and local regulations require that all residential structures be a minimum of one hundred fifty feet from the oil well shaft. This constraint along with the shape and size of the platted lot results in an exceptionally difficult site to build on. This issue is compounded by the fact that the P.U.D. documents recorded as a part of this project are also in conflict. The engineering and utility plans prepared by Shear Engineering along with the site and landscape plans prepared by Jim Sell Designs all recorded by the City of Fort Collins as a part of the P.U.D. approval process are in conflict with the recorded plat. In addition all of the above are different than the surveyed location of the oil well in the field. A home design along with full architectural working drawings and engineering was prepared by M. Torgerson Architects based on the engineering documents and site and landscape plan. The home as designed fits completely within the site constraints outlined in these documents. When the plans were issued for building permit however, the above -mentioned discrepancies were identified. While it is our belief that a permit can be issued for the plan as designed based on the recorded documents from the City of Fort Collins standpoint, a concern of liability arises. The builder rightly does not wish to proceed with construction unless he is satisfied that the proposed structure meets not only the setbacks enumerated in the recorded P.U.D. documents, but also those identified by field survey and observation. Background Information Exhibit "A" shows the plan as designed superimposed on the recorded engineering, site and landscape plan. This plan clearly meets the required 16' front setback and 15' side setback. Exhibit "B" shows the same plan superimposed on a field survey developed recently. Exhibit `B" clearly shows that the plan encroaches into the required 150' setback from the oil well. Exhibit "C" illustrates the site as proposed if the proposed variances are approved. The front setback would be reduced to 14' while the side setback would be reduced to 10', all other setbacks remain as approved by the P.U.D. This allows the site plan to not only meet the City of Fort Collins imposed setback from the oil wells, but also ensures that it is compliant with this setback as it relates to field survey work. r40 NAd 5.lmgema,116. MCA 223 N U69, Fnifo0 K t0 80524 920.4W431 BR4161431 For 970.4161435 fmoit adal®aIC66S.M 1Na//wwwmdu6iwm Requested Variance. We request permission to allow the front setback along Town Center Drive to be reduced from the required 16' to 14'. We also request permission to allow the corner side setback along Town Center Court to be reduced from the required 15' to 10' thereby allowing the construction of the plans as designed and therefore ensuring their compliance with not just the approved P.U.D., but all applicable regulatory agencies. Review Criteria. This variance is requested in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: a) the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good because a redaction of two feet along the frontage would be nearly imperceptible. In addition, the lot immediately to the East as well as the property to the South have been deemed to be virtually an -buildable due to the constraints of the oil well setbacks, therefore the variance if approved would not affect any neighboring.properties. The nearest neighboring lot, lot 52 contains the residence of owner of the lot in question. Lot 50 was the previous residence of the owner; b) granting of the variance wouldn't authorize any change in use because there is no change of use proposed; c) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicants as follows. The buildable portions of the site (the portion not within any applicable setback), has exceptional narrowness (see exhibits) to the extent that the space left over for the layout of a house on the property is smaller than necessary, and thereby application of the standard constitutes exceptional practical difficulties upon the property owner. Additionally, the fact that there is a discrepancy between the setback lines on various approved PUD plans and the actual field survey is an "exceptional situation unique to this property," the confusion of which constitutes undue hardship. Such confusion was not caused by the act or omission of the property owner or applicant. Thank you for your consideration of this variance request. Sincerely' i%//J� Mikal S. Torgerson M. Torgerson Architects eds-o( RECEIVED 3/2/2005 Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Subject: Request for Zoning modification, 1303 Town Center Drive Mr. Barnes, I received a notice of the request for zoning modification for 1303 Town Center Drive because I own a nearby property at 3215 Town Center Court. I am unable to attend the meeting on March 10°i. I have both comments and questions about the request from Mikal Torgerson for the zoning modification. First, the Hearthfire P.U.D., in which the property resides, has a Design Review Board which operates under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements. The review board has published a set of Design Review Guidelines which specify the required setbacks. The setbacks that are published have an exception for garages: 20 feet of setback is required for a garage. From your letter informing me of the request for zoning modification, it is not clear if the request by Mikal Torgerson for smaller setbacks will apply for a garage as well as the living space. I feel that the zoning request, if granted, should apply only to living space. All other garages in the neighborhood have a 20 foot minimum setback. I would prefer to maintain the uniform appearance; I believe that the uniformity of appearance affects the value of my property, and an exception to the zoning requirement so close to my property would have an adverse impact on my property value. Second, I have no objection to the requested modifications if they apply only to living space: a 2 foot difference in the front seems negligible, and the 5 foot reduction for the side setback, although more significant, is mitigated in my opinion because the side of the property faces a cul-de-sac, and is less prominent visually than the front of the lot. Finally, I have some questions about the process. Has Mr. Torgerson already submitted his plans to the Hearthfire Design Review Board? If the city of Fort Collins grants the zoning modification request, does that ruling supercede the approval process of the Hearthfire Design Review Board? It seems to me that the city of Fort Collins should not become involved with this request until such time as the Hearthfire Design Review Board has approved Mr. Torgerson's plans, complete with the proposed setback exceptions. V/R Cap Smith