Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2014 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingMichael Bello, Chair Council Liaison: Gino Campana Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Daphne Bear Bob Long LOCATION: John McCoy City Council Chambers Ralph Shields 300 LaPorte Avenue Butch Stockover 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 THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2014 8:30 A.M. 1. ROLL CALL 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (for items not on the Agenda) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 4. APPEAL 2768 Address 810 N. College Avenue Petitioner Joe Dice Owner The Grow Shop, LLC Zoning District CG Justification See petitioner's letter Project Description Request for Variance to Section 3.8.7(G)(1) and 3.8.7(G)(2) - Sign Setbacks The variance requested will reduce the required setback from the front property line for a 44 square foot, two-sided freestanding sign from 10 feet to 0 feet and will reduce the required side setback from a side lot line (the north lot line) from 15 feet to 0 feet. The variances are requested in order to allow the existing freestanding liquor store sign to be enlarged by the addition of another sign panel under the existing panel. The sign is proposed to remain in the same location. The applicant will remove the other freestanding sign on the lot (the sign which advertises The Grow Shop). 5. APPEAL 2769 Address 331 Spinnaker Lane Petitioner/Owner Martin P. Johns Zoning District RL Justification See petitioner's letter Project Description Request for Variance to Section 4.4(D)(2)(b) - front setback ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2014 - Page 2 The variance will reduce the required minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet in order to allow the construction of a new garage and mudroom addition to replace the existing garage. The existing garage is at a 20 foot setback, the addition will be at a 12 foot setback. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT Michael Bello, Chair Council Liaison: Gino Campana Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Daphne Bear Bob Long LOCATION: John McCoy City Council Chambers Ralph Shields 300 LaPorte Avenue Butch Stockover 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 THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2014 8:30 A.M. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Bear, Shields, Shuff, Bello, Stockover, McCoy (**Secretary’s note: Long arrived at 8:37 A.M.) 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: None 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 8, 2014 MEETING Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bear, Bello, Shields, Stockover Nays: none 4. APPEAL NO. 2763 Approved Address 1101 N. College Avenue Petitioner Vanessa Houk Zoning District CG Justification See petitioner's letter Project Description Request for Variance to Section 3.8.7(G)(1) – Sign Setback Section 3.8.7(G)(1) – The code requires that the proposed 53 square feet per side, 10 feet tall monument sign be setback 10 feet from the College Avenue right-of-way line. The variance requested will reduce the required sign setback from 10 feet to 0 feet in order to allow the proposed sign to be located in the same location as the previously existing sign (which received a similar variance in 2011 due to the relocation of the right-of-way line associated with the North College Improvements Project). The new sign is 10 square feet per side smaller than the previously existing sign. STAFF PRESENTATION: Barnes showed slides relevant to the application and explained the history of the previous 2011 appeal that was submitted by the City Engineering Department. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals – June 12, 2014 - Page 2 APPLICANT PARTICIPATION: Richard Houk, business owner, stated that the name of the business has been changed back to its original name; thus the old sign and the need for the variance. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: None BOARD DISCUSSION: McCoy asked why a variance is needed given the 2011 variance. Barnes replied they would not need a variance if the sign were the same; however, they are proposing a new sign. He stated the face or graphics of the sign could be changed without a variance. Bello commented he prefers the proposed older sign over the sign approved in 2011. Shuff stated the proposed sign is smaller and less obtrusive than the previous sign. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 2763 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The hardship condition is met in that there is no conforming location on the lot for the sign; the nature of the physical improvements that currently exist on the lot prevent the sign from being relocated further to the west to comply with the Code; the proposed sign is actually a sign that was used by the business and was located on the same location it is now proposed; and the new sign is actually smaller than the sign that was approved under the variance in 2011. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bear, Bello, Shields, Stockover and Long Nays: none 5. APPEAL NO. 2764 Denied Address 209 Third Street Petitioner Doug Bennett Owners Charles and Michelle Klamm Zoning District RL Justification See petitioner's letter Project Description Request for Variance to Section 4.4(D)(2)(b) - front setback The variance will reduce the required minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to allow the existing single family dwelling to be removed and a new single family dwelling constructed in its place. The existing house is at an approximate 14 foot setback from the front lot line. STAFF PRESENTATION: Barnes showed slides relevant to the application and discussed the proposed project. He noted there are no structures on the lot across the street. Bello asked if any of the structures behind the home are fixed. Barnes replied the applicant would speak to that. APPLICANT PARTICIPATION: Douglas Bennett, 521 N. Whitcomb Street, stated the structures in the rear of the property are not movable and the plan is for the new home to approximately match the footprint of the existing home. Zoning Board of Appeals – June 12, 2014 - Page 3 Bear asked for additional detail regarding the structures on the rear of the lot. Mr. Bennett replied one of the structures is a makeshift studio on a permanent foundation. He acknowledged it could be moved. Long stated one of the structures appears to be a single car garage. Mr. Bennett pointed out a structure in the back of the lot that the owner is proposing to remove. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: Cassandra Shell, 205 Third Street, discussed a structure on existing concrete which is on the property line. She suggested the structure should be removed in order to benefit the neighborhood. She stated she would prefer a two-story house and supported the home owners in their design. Mr. Bennett stated the proposed design is not a full 2-story structure which makes the design less obtrusive. Stockover asked where the motorhome will be parked. Mr. Bennett replied he could not speak for the owners but stated the owners do reside on the property. Ms. Shell stated the property owners will be selling the motorhome this summer. BOARD DISCUSSION: Bear asked how many feet are required between a detached garage and a house. Barnes replied that the requirement is six feet without fire rated construction. Bear stated it appears there is about eight feet. Stockover stated he would like to table the discussion until the applicant is present and expressed concern that the home would be quite a bit farther forward than those on the rest of the block. He stated this decision will set a precedent for the entire block. Bear stated that no justification for a hardship has been presented. Stockover questioned why the structures in the rear of the property could not be moved. Long stated this is a construction problem due to the older garage and stated that the variance is difficult to justify because it is the front lot line. Shuff agreed with Long and stated the hardship criteria have not been met. She stated the lot is standard sized with plenty of depth and width and stated the same home square footage could be garnered in other ways. She stated she would not support the request. Bello agreed and stated there is no hardship justification. Stockover stated this project would be beneficial to the neighborhood and asked what would occur if the Board denies this request. Barnes replied the applicants could work with the Historic Preservation Department regarding design and location of the home. The applicants could return with another variance request, or move the home six feet back in order to not need a variance. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny Appeal No. 2764 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public good. The proposal does not satisfy any of the three criteria for which a variance can be granted; the applicant has offered the argument that there is an exceptional situation that is unique to the property and compliance with the 20 foot setback would result in a very shallow home; however, the lot is the same size as other lots in the area and the existing house is closer to the front of the lot than the nearby homes. There is no hardship in requiring the house to be located six feet further west. Zoning Board of Appeals – June 12, 2014 - Page 4 McCoy stated the improvement to the lot would not be detrimental to the public good. Bello amended his motion to exclude the wording regarding the project being detrimental to the public good. Shuff accepted the amendment. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bear, Bello, Shields, Stockover and Long Nays: none 6. APPEAL NO. 2765 Approved Address 617 Cherry Street Petitioner Amie Lopez Zoning District NCM Justification See petitioner's letter Project Description Request for Variance to Section 4.8(E)(3) - rear setback The variance would reduce the required minimum rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 5 feet in order to allow for a new 20 feet x 20 feet one-story detached garage to be constructed. STAFF PRESENTATION: Barnes showed slides relevant to the application and discussed the proposed project. He noted it is not uncommon in Old Town neighborhoods to have garages placed right up to the alley. Barnes noted that there was an incorrect measurement in the applicant’s letter for the garage directly south. We measured the distance of the garage to the property line and it is actually15 feet, plus or minus a few inches, from the lot line and is not 5 feet as indicated in the letter. Shuff asked if the garage to the south is 15 feet from the property line. Barnes replied in the affirmative. Bear asked about setbacks if the alley were in the rear rather than on the side of the lot. Barnes confirmed the setback would be 5 feet if it were in the rear and 15 feet since it is on the side. APPLICANT PARTICIPATION: Amie Lopez, 617 Cherry Street, stated the lot to the south of her property is two homes, a parking area, and a garage, which faces Maple Street. She stated the variance has been requested due to the narrowness of the lot. She noted that a compliant plan would result in trees being removed and stated the request is inconsequential and does not impede on the neighbors to the south. Bello asked about the width of the alley. Barnes replied it is likely 15 feet wide. McCoy asked if one of the new garages across the alley contains an upstairs living space. Ms. Lopez replied in the affirmative and stated the tenant parks in the driveway. She went on to state the placement of the proposed driveway would help out the neighbors with turning radius. Bello supported the idea of having the garage doors opposite each other. Ms. Lopez replied the neighbor’s garage will be slightly offset from her proposed garage. She stated trees will need to be removed should her garage be placed further north. Bello noted a there was a letter in support of the variance from a neighbor. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: None Zoning Board of Appeals – June 12, 2014 - Page 5 BOARD DISCUSSION: Stockover stated that his visualization of the garage fits within the context of the neighborhood. He discussed the uniqueness of the lot and stated he would support the variance as it does not affect any other property. Bello questioned whether or not a hardship exists and stated there is no justification for this variance. Bear stated the functional utility of the alley is the same whether it is on the side or rear of the property; therefore, the hardship could be justified because the intent is being served. Bello stated that the variance may be nominal and inconsequential but it is not a hardship. Bear stated the proposal, given the narrowness of the alley, creates an opportunity to have better ingress and egress. Additionally, the reconfiguration of the lot could be considered a hardship. Long noted a hardship has been created due to the fact the lot is perpendicular and stated meeting the Code would not create a winning situation. Stockover stated the variance would be nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. Deputy City Attorney Eckman noted only one of the three criteria is required to be met and that it is not detrimental to the public good. Shuff asked about the purpose of the 15 foot setback on property that is not abutting an alley. Side yard setbacks are 5 feet. Barnes replied it is required in almost all zones throughout the City for residential structures in order to ensure adequate back yard space without having a structure casting shadows. The setback can be reduced to 5 feet on an alley because the alley serves as part of that buffer. Barnes discussed the shape of the subject lot and surrounding properties. The lot to the south, 618 Maple St, is a flag shaped lot with a similar length as the applicant’s lot; then it widens out and there is an alley on both sides of it. There previously was a u-shaped alley here and that connection between the 2 alleys was vacated and given to the 4 surrounding properties. Shuff stated the proposed garage is not impeding on any adjacent properties and it is a unique situation with minimal access. Bello asked if the Board would support requiring the garage doors to be opposite one another. Long stated he would support that motion. Ms. Lopez stated trees would need to be removed if the garage doors were to exactly align. She questioned whether the doors need to align but stated the driveways would align. Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal No. 2765 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except for in a nominal and inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Additionally, access at a 5 foot setback would be in a better location with regard to the neighbors’ across the alley. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bear, Shields, Stockover and Long Zoning Board of Appeals – June 12, 2014 - Page 6 Nays: Bello 7. APPEAL NO. 2766 Approved Address 331 Smith Street Petitioner Jeff Schneider Owner Christopher and Aleta Weller Zoning District NCM Justification See petitioner's letter Project Description Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(D)(3) and 4.8(E)(4) rear floor area ratio and side setback The variance requested will increase the allowed floor area ratio in the rear 50% of the lot from .33 to .532 (an increase from 783.5 square feet allowed to 1264 square feet proposed) and will reduce the required minimum street side setback along Magnolia Street from 15 feet to 13.5 feet. The variance is requested in order to allow a 669 square feet second floor addition (of which 310 square feet is in the rear 50% of this shallow lot). While a lot area to floor area ratio variance is being requested for the rear 50% of the lot, the required overall lot area to floor area ratio for the entire lot is being met. The new second floor will be setback 1 foot further from the street side lot line than the setback of the existing house. STAFF PRESENTATION: Barnes noted that the Board received a letter from the owners of 401 Smith Street in support of the project. Additionally, Barnes received a phone call from the neighbor to the north in support of the project. Barnes slowed slides relevant to the application and discussed the proposed project noting the lot is quite shallow with quite a bit of construction already on the rear half of the lot. He stated the existing house is a considerable distance from the street and noted the second floor walls are dormer type additions and are not full height walls. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, spoke on behalf of the owners and stated the staff presentation covered his points. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: None BOARD DISCUSSION: Long stated this is a reasonable solution given the true hardship of the lot size. Shuff noted the overall floor area ratio is still being met and the scale of the project has been brought down. Bello stated this is a clear hardship case. Bello made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal No. 2766 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The variance request to increase the allowed floor area ratio in the rear half of the lot from 0.33 to 0.532 meets the hardship standard due to the small size of the lot, location of the existing home and the shallow 95 foot depth of the lot. Additionally, the nominal and inconsequential standard is satisfied for the rear floor area variance as the overall lot area to floor area ratio is in compliance with the addition and the addition is designed with dormer walls on the sides that are small and only 16 feet in height rather than full 2-story walls. The nominal and Zoning Board of Appeals – June 12, 2014 - Page 7 inconsequential standard is also satisfied for the street side setback reduction because the vertical wall of the second floor addition will be set back further than the existing non- conforming setback and because the vertical wall of the second floor is only 4.5 feet higher by 18 feet long. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bear, Bello, Shields, Stockover and Long Nays: none 6. OTHER BUSINESS Barnes stated two appeals have been scheduled for July. Stockover and McCoy will not be present at the August meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Michael Bello, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT PETER BARNES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PROJECT: Appeal # 2768 Address – 810 N. College Avenue Zoning Board of Appeals Variance July 10, 2014 ZBA Hearing APPLICANT: Joe Dice OWNER: The Grow Shop, LLC 810 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 ZONE DISTRICT: CS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance to Sections 3.8.7(G)(1) and 3.8.7(G)(2) - Sign setbacks The variance requested will reduce the required setback from the front property line for a 44 square foot, two-sided freestanding sign from 10 feet to 0 feet and will reduce the required side setback from a side lot line (the north lot line) from 15 feet to 0 feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the existing freestanding liquor store sign to be enlarged by the addition of another sign panel under the existing panel. The sign is proposed to remain in the same location and the applicant will remove the other freestanding sign on the lot (the sign which advertises The Grow Shop). RECOMMENDATION: Table COMMENTS: 1. Background: The existing sign in question advertises the liquor store located at 814 N. College Avenue, which is the lot to the north of 810 N. College Avenue. The ZBA granted a variance in 2011 to allow the previously existing liquor store sign to be relocated on the lot as a result of the North College Improvements Project. That variance allowed the 12 foot tall sign to be at a 0 foot setback from both the front lot line along College Avenue and the south side lot line of 814 N. College Avenue. A sign permit was issued in 2012 for the relocated sign per the variance approved in 2011. It was discovered later that the sign was mistakenly installed on the wrong side of the side lot line, resulting in it actually being located on the 810 N. College Avenue property. The owner of 810 N. College Avenue is claiming ownership of the sign and is proposing to enlarge the sign, turning it into a sign advertising the businesses on both properties (810 and 814 N. College). This joint tenant sign will allow the other existing sign on 810 N. College Avenue to be removed. The proposed enlargement of the sign results in the need for variances to the front and side setbacks, similar to those granted in 2011. Zoning Variance – Appeal #2768 July 10, 2014 - Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Page 2 One of the differences is that this time the side setback variance is from the north lot line of 810 N. College Avenue, whereas the previous side setback variance was from the south lot line of 814 N. College Avenue. The owner of the liquor store at 814 N. College Avenue is claiming ownership of the sign and has stated that their sign contractor will correct the locational error made and move the sign onto the liquor store property as originally intended. However, the liquor store owner contends that the owner of 810 N. College Avenue has so far refused permission for the sign contractor to have access to the sign which is now on his property. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See Petitioner’s letter 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Both of the property owners involved in this matter are claiming ownership of the sign. Staff recommends that the variance request to reduce the front and side setback be tabled until the ownership matter is resolved. Once that issue has been settled, it would be appropriate to consider the variance request if that is still the desire of the owner or owners. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board table Appeal #2768. Zoning Variance Review City of Fort Collins To Whom It May Concern, The zoning board may elect to grant variances where it finds that 1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property. This section applies to the situation explained herein. There is currently a sign on the property located at 810 N. College Ave. which was placed on the property by mistake by the owners of the property located next door. It is my intent to be approved for a variance for this sign located on my property. I feel that granting approval for the sign variance is the best option available for all parties involved; the City of Fort Collins, my neighbors and I. Multiple issues could arise from trying to remove the sign from the property. Relocating the sign would narrow the driveway between properties more as well as cause possible damage to the new improvements completed during the N. College renovation. The City of Fort Collins raised the sidewalk and put an asphalt grade along the sidewalk. This grade was meant to secure the fill used to raise the sidewalk. When the sign in question was installed it was placed in the grade, so to remove the sign would risk the sidewalk being compromised and could result in the sidewalk to crack; per the City of Fort Collins engineer. The city also informed me that if the sign was moved and the sidewalk does in fact crack, it will be my responsibility since the sign is currently located on my property. After seeking legal counsel; it was determined the sign in now owned by me and is my responsibility. The city has previously granted a variance for this sign on behalf of the neighboring property; however, the sign was installed in the wrong location by one foot to the south of their property line and onto my property. This in turn triggered me to request the same variance granted to the neighboring property as the sign sits on my property, not theirs. I intend to remedy this situation for the city, my neighbor and myself by not moving the sign; however as the sign is on my property I am asking for this variance to be granted. This will help the city by not causing any damage to the work that was completed or incur any expenses trying to take legal action to collect for repairs. I have enclosed photos of how the sign was installed after all of the North College improvements were completed. Note in the pictures: 1) Asphalt damage caused by the install 2) Electrical wire on outside of pole (hazard) 3) Only installed one pole, not two like it used to have 4) Color of the sign is the same as the bowling alley as it used to be on the bowling alley side of the driveway, so it does not match my property colors 5) Address is not my address, yet it is located on my property Approving this variance should appeal to the City of Fort Collins because if approved I intend to revamp the old, dilapidated sign and make it new and fresh to better represent the look the city has been working so hard on for the north side of the city. I intend to give the sign a ‘facelift’ as described in this request. I am requesting the same variance (see attached) for this sign that has been previously granted, only I am requesting the variance for my address, 810 N. College Ave., not for 814 N. College Ave—the address of the current variance. Sincerely, Joe Dice Property Owner, 810 N. College Ave. 6/30/14 LEGAL NOTICE 6/27/14 LEGAL NOTICE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where: (1) by reason of exceptional situations or circumstances, the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property; (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; or (3) the proposal will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of code sections: 3.8.7(G)(1) and 3.8.7(G)(2) has been requested by: Joe Dice for described property: 810 N College Ave Zoning District: CS The variance will reduce the required setback from the front property line for a 44 square feet two-sided free-standing sign from 10 feet to 0 feet and will reduce the required sign setback from a side lot line (the north lot line) from 15 feet to 0 feet. The variances are requested in order to allow the existing free- standing Liquor store sign to be enlarged by the addition of another sign panel under the existing panel. The sign is proposed to remain in the same location. The applicant will remove the other free-standing sign on the lot (the sign which advertises the Grow Shop). This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal Number: 2768 As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of this variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 10, 2014 in the Council Chambers at 300 LaPorte Ave. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need assistance to participate, please call (970) 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, at (970) 416-2355. Zoning Administrator Michael Bello, Chair Council Liaison: Gino Campana Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Daphne Bear Bob Long LOCATION: John McCoy City Council Chambers Ralph Shields 300 LaPorte Avenue Butch Stockover Fort Collins, CO 80521 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Adjacent Property Owner Notification ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT Ali van Deutekom, Zoning Inspector PROJECT: Appeal # 2769 Address – 331 Spinnaker Ln Zoning Board of Appeals Variance July 10, 2014 ZBA Hearing APPLICANT: Martin Johns OWNER: Martin Johns 331 Spinnaker Ln. Fort Collins, CO 80525 ZONE DISTRICT: RL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance to Section 4.4(D)(2)(b) - front setback. The variance will reduce the required minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet in order to allow the construction of a new garage and mudroom addition to replace the existing garage. The existing garage is at a 20 foot setback, the addition will be at a 12 foot setback. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is located in The Landings development, which consists of numerous individually approved PUD’s under the City’s previous Land Development Guidance System. The minimum front yard setback requirement varies from PUD to PUD, resulting in homes on the other side of Spinnaker Lane allowed to be closer to the front lot line then the homes on the side of Spinnaker on which the applicant’s house is located. In addition to the required 20 feet minimum front setback in the RL zone, the Code also requires that garage doors be located at least 20 feet behind the public sidewalk. The applicant’s proposal results in the new garage door being 24.3 feet behind the sidewalk. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See Petitioner’s letter 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the front setback and finds that:  The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good.  The setback reduction is nominal/inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood since other homes in the vicinity have similar front setbacks. Additionally, only a corner of the proposed garage will be at a 12 foot setback. Zoning Variance – Appeal #2769 July 10, 2014 - Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Page 2 The setback distance increases for the remainder of the garage due to the curvature of the property line following the curvature of the street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appeal #2769. June 4, 2014 City of Fort Collins – Zoning Review Board 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 Review Board Members, My property at 331 Spinnaker Lane, Fort Collins is irregularly shaped, as recorded on the original subdivision plat in 1977. The property is currently developed with my existing home and landscaping. The shape of the lot and the curvature of the road required a very large front yard with the full 20 foot setback that was followed according to code during initial construction of the dwelling in 1979, a much larger front yard than would be required on a lot with side lot lines perpendicular to the street frontage. The shape of the lot is beyond my control, as it was platted almost 40 years ago. There are other homes on Spinnaker Lane that were constructed with less than the minimum 20 foot front setback. I am requesting a minimum front setback of 12 feet instead of the current 20 foot setback. The proposed garage face would be a minimum of 24 feet from the back of the sidewalk, preserving the ability to park a full sized car in the driveway without protruding into the sidewalk or street. Approval of a variance to the minimum front setback of 12 feet would allow me to maximize the development potential of the lot without having a negative impact on traffic safety or the ability of pedestrians to use the sidewalk due to parked vehicles extending beyond the back of sidewalk. Approval of the request would permit me to construct a home on the property reasonably consistent in size and character with other homes in the vicinity and same zone. This would add value to my home and neighborhood. Approval of the request would not encroach into the front utility easement. The property is zoned for residential development; the right-of-way for Spinnaker Lane is 60 feet wide, and the sidewalks are five feet outside the right-of-way. If the request is approved, my garage will be a minimum of 24 feet away from the sidewalk at its closest point. I have consulted with neighboring property owners regarding my request, and have included a letter signed by neighbors in the vicinity stating no opposition to my proposal. Approval of the request would not conflict with any other aspect of the City of Fort Collins Zoning Ordinance to my knowledge. I appreciate your consideration of my request for a Zoning Variance Review. Sincerely, Martin P. Johns 331 Spinnaker Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 6/27/14 LEGAL NOTICE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where: (1) by reason of exceptional situations or circumstances, the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property; (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; or (3) the proposal will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of code sections: 4.4(D)(2)(b) has been requested by: Martin P. Johns for described property: 331 Spinnaker Ln Zoning District: RL The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet in order to allow the construction of a new garage and mudroom addition to replace the existing garage. The existing garage is at a 20 foot setback; the replacement garage will be at a 12 foot setback. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal Number: 2769 As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of this variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 10, 2014 in the Council Chambers at 300 LaPorte Ave. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need assistance to participate, please call (970) 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, at (970) 416-2355. Zoning Administrator Michael Bello, Chair Council Liaison: Gino Campana Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes Daphne Bear Bob Long LOCATION: John McCoy City Council Chambers Ralph Shields 300 LaPorte Avenue Butch Stockover Fort Collins, CO 80521 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Adjacent Property Owner Notification MEYER LEO MICHAEL 312 SPINNAKER LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 ADDIS MORGAN 325 SPINNAKER LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 ORTMANN M JORDANA REVOCABLE TRUST 6660 DELMONICO AVE 222 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80919‐1856 PAUZAUSKIE SALLY/WILLIAM 407 SPINNAKER LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 SPEARS KURT E/REBECCA E 319 SPINNAKER LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 MALTBY DEBRA B 406 CORMORANT CT FT COLLINS, CO 80525 HUTSON HEATHER M 412 CORMORANT CT FT COLLINS, CO 80525 TOUCHSTONE PROPERTIES LANDINGS COMMUNITY ASSN 2850 MCCLELLAND DR STE 1000 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 BLAKE JASON PAUL/DARIL ANNE 313 BOWLINE CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 BUSBY PAUL DOUGLAS 319 BOWLINE CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 CONSTANTINE KOSTA S 325 BOWLINE CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 JOHNS MARTIN P/NIKOLE R 331 SPINNAKER LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 APPEAL 2769 JULY 10, 2014 331 SPINNAKER LN Names and Mailing Addresses for Home Owners of record within 150 feet of 331 Spinnaker Lane: 312 Spinnaker Lane Leo Michael and Susan Renee Meyer 312 Spinnaker Lane Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525 319 Spinnaker Lane Kurt and Rebecca Spears 319 Spinnaker Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 325 Spinnaker lane Morgan Addis 325 Spinnaker Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 401 Spinnaker Lane Jordana Ortmann 6660 Delmonico Ave Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919‐1856 407 Spinnaker Lane Sally A and William J Pauzauskie 407 Spinnaker Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 319 Bowline Ct Paul Douglas Busby 319 Bowline Ct Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 406 Cormorant Ct Debra Maltby 406 Cormorant Ct Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 412 Cormorant Ct Heather Hutson 412 Cormorant Ct Fort Collins, Colorado 80525