Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/2015 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingMichael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck 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 DECEMBER 10, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA150048 Address: 1415 Parkwood Drive Petitioner/Owner: Dan Osborn Zoning District: RL Code Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(a) Project Description The variance would allow a 20 sq. ft. sign to be placed in the front yard of a single family residential property. 2. APPEAL ZBA150049 Address: 420 E Plum Street Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Owner: John & Jen Houska Zoning District: NCM Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: The variance request involves two properties, 420 E. Plum St. and 424 E. Plum Street. The variance would allow two existing garages, built within 3 feet of the shared property line, to be modified creating one structure that straddles the shared property line. The required setback from the property line on both sides is 5 ft. . • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Michael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck 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 NOVEMBER 12, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Boardmembers Absent: Robert Long • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2015 meeting. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA150041 -Approved Address: Petitioner: Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description 4630 Snow Mesa Drive DaVinci Sign Systems UCHealth System HG-Harmony Corridor District 3.8. 7(G)(6) The variance would allow two double-sided ground signs parallel with Snow Mesa Drive; the maximum is one ground sign. Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the portion of the street on which the site is located is private. He discussed the desire for the second sign along the second drive for the emergency entrance and detailed the proposed signs. Additionally, Beals stated staff is recommending approval of the request as being nominal and inconsequential. Zoning Board of Appeals Page2 November 12, 2015 Stockover asked if the sign shown in the photo is permanent. Beals replied in the negative stating it was a temporary sign for construction purposes. Bear asked if the variance request is solely for two versus one sign. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bello asked why the variance is needed. Beals replied the Sign Code does not address private drives and both of the signs are considered to be on Snow Mesa Drive. Sabrina Steele, UC Health, noted both signs are proposed to be double-sided and discussed the need for both signs. She stated the new sign would need to be exactly where the temporary sign is located. Bello asked about the yellow circle signs on the drawings. Steele replied those are all regulatory signs and are less than four square feet. Shuff asked if the double-sided factor needs to be addressed. Beals replied the signs are parallel to the right-of-way and meet the size requirements so the double-sided factor is not an issue. Shuff asked about the location of the sign. Beals replied the property line runs in the middle of the private drive; therefore the required setback is from that line and placing the sign in the parkway strip would meet that requirement. Audience Participation: None. Board discussion: Bear pointed out the need for the sign. Shuff stated it is a public health and safety issue. Stockover also discussed the need for the two signs. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150041 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the two ground signs parallel with Snow Mesa are to direct emergency traffic to the correct entrance, the two signs are a substantial distance from the public right-of-way and are intended to be seen by the traffic on the private drive; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standards but in a nominal and 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, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA150042 -Approved Address: Petitioner: Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1041 Woodward Way DaVinci Sign Systems Woodward Inc. CCR-Community Commercial Poudre River District 3.8. 7(G)(6) The variance request is for one additional ground sign along S. Lemay Avenue and six directional ground signs within the parking lot that are greater than 4 square feet. Zoning Board of Appeals Page3 November 12, 2015 Beals stated one ground sign per street frontage is allowed and this property has two frontages, Lincoln and Lemay. He stated the request is for an additional ground sign along Lemay and for six additional ground signs along Woodward Way. Beals noted the signs are a bit taller as much of the traffic entering the campus will be semi trucks. He stated staff is recommending approval as the linear distance between signs is 900 feet. Additionally, landscaping will aid in lessening the impact of the interior directional signs on the right- of-way. Bear asked if only one ground sign per frontage is allowed regardless of the development size. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bello asked why the interior signs are in need of a variance. Beals replied those signs, when over 4 square feet, are not addressed in the code and stated staff is looking to rewrite this particular section. Shuff asked if the Magnolia extension is the only entrance with a traffic signal. Beals replied in the affirmative. Stockover asked if the code allows interior directional signs under 4 square feet. Beals replied in the affirmative. Stockover stated it is up to the Board to determine if it is appropriate for those signs to be larger in this case. Mike Long, DaVinci Signs, clarified Magnolia on the east side of Lemay is public and Woodward Way on the west side of Lemay is private. Additionally, he stated the additional landscaping and buildings will aid in making the interior directional signs less visible from the right-of-way. Bear asked if the interior signs are all directional. Mr. Long replied in the affirmative. Shuff asked about the necessity of the size of the interior directional signs. Mr. Long replied the size was based on Woodward corporate standards as well as the size of the campus and expected amount of traffic. Bello asked if the copy is what is measured in terms of the 4 square feet. Beals replied the entire sign would be measured; however, the base would not be included but it is minimal in size in this case. McCoy asked about the difference between the sign and the base. Beals replied the base would be considered larger if it were a different material. McCoy asked about the maximum height for a 4 square foot sign. Beals replied there is no maximum height. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Beals noted the maximum height for an on-site directional 4 square foot sign is ten feet. Stockover asked if that definition addresses the signs' visibility from a public right-of-way. Mr. Yatabe replied signs not visible from the public right-of-way are exempted from the need for a variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Page4 November 12, 2015 Shuff asked if staff had any concern regarding the size of the directional signs. Beals replied staff had those discussions but ultimately determined the signs are not directly in front of the public right- of-way and will be shielded by landscaping or buildings. Boardmembers expressed some concern with the interior directional sign on Lemay. Bello suggested the possibility of redesigning that one sign. Mr. Long replied he could take the suggested change back to Woodward. Bello suggested approving all of the signs with the exception of the directional sign on Lemay, unless it was made smaller. Bear suggested the change in sign size may be insignificant given the size of the campus. Mr. Long asked if the sign length could be increased if the height were decreased. Stockover discussed the importance of the City's strict sign code but noted there is no risk of competing signs in this case. He supported this variance as is for this site, but expressed some concern regarding setting a precedent. Bear stated the size of the sign is designed to safely and effectively direct traffic and expressed support for the variance as is. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150042 for the following reasons: the variances are not detrimental to the public good, the two ground signs on North Lemay are a substantial distance apart not creating a clutter of signage along the street frontage, the code does not consider the size of the campus and that is impactful in this particular request, the six additional ground signs within the parking lot are internal to the site and will be minimally viewed from the public right-of-way because the perimeter of the property will be heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs, and the applicant has testified that it is necessary to safely and effectively direct the traffic coming into the campus; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standards but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Cone contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA150043-Approved Address: Petitioner: Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 3404 East Harmony Road Schlosser Signs Hewlett Packard HG-Harmony Corridor District 3.8. 7(G)(6) The variance request will allow a second ground sign along the East Harmony Road street frontage. Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and stated this is a request for a second ground sign at the campus' second entrance along Harmony Road, at the Lady Moon Drive entrance. He stated the proposed sign would be ten feet high and six feet wide and noted staff is recommending approval of the request based on the linear distance between the two signs. Nicole Vatrano, Schlosser Signs, noted a temporary sign is currently in place. Audience Participation: None. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 November 12, 2015 Board Discussion: McCoy asked why a variance is needed. Beals replied only one ground sign per street frontage for the entire development is allowed. Bear stated this appears to be in the interest of the public. Stockover supported the variance because of the linear distance between signs and mature landscaping. Shuff supported the variance given the size of the campus and distance between signs. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150043 for the following reasons: the variances are not detrimental to the public good, the two ground signs on East Harmony Road are a substantial distance apart, not creating a clutter of signage along the street frontage; therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and 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, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL ZBA150044-Approved Address: Petitioner/Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 251 Osiander Street Kyle & Abigail Keeler CCN-Community Commercial North College District 3.5.2(E)(3) The variance would allow an alley accessed garage/carriage house to continue to be built upon a foundation that was installed 1 foot into the required 8 foot rear yard setback. (**Secretary's Note: Chair Bello withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Beals stated similar requests have come before the Board previously and noted this owner has already vacated the necessary easement. He stated staff is recommending approval of the variance. Kyle Keeler, 251 Osiander Street, clarified the foundation was incorrectly poured because the witness corner pins were offset from the property line by one foot. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Bear stated removing the existing foundation would be wasteful and noted the approval of this variance is consistent with neighboring properties. Bear made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150044cfor the following reasons: the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public good, the one foot encroachment is 12% of the entire required 8 foot setback, the setback is from the property line to join to an alley and not another residential property; therefore, in the context of the neighborhood, the variance will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, McCoy, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. Zoning Board of Appeals Page6 November 12, 2015 THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. APPEAL ZBA150045 -Approved Address: Petitioner/Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 324 E Oak Street Rob Kittle, RK Holdings NCB-Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District 4.9(D)(3); 4.9(D)(6)(d); 4.9E(2)(a)(1 ); and 4.9(E)(2)(b)(1) This is an extension request. In April of 2015 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted 4 variances: 1) A 2nd story addition on an accessory building resulting in 1,225 total square feet, 2) encroachment of 6 feet into a required 7 feet side yard setback, 3) 2 story accessory building with habitable space, 4) accessory building with habitable space with an eave height of 22 feet, where 13 feet eave height is allowed. The applicant has not applied for the building permits within in 6 months of the approval and therefore is requesting an extension. Beals stated these variances were approved in April with the goal of enhancing the look of the property and making it more historically compatible with the existing primary structure. Additionally, he stated the code requires building permits to be pulled within 6 months of the variance approvals which has not occurred in this case because, according to the real estate company which owns the property, it was their busy season and they were unable to get the permits pulled. Beals stated staff is in support of granting the 6 month extension, for which the Board will need to find good cause. Stockover asked if the applicant will need to resubmit should the extension be denied. Beals replied in the affirmative. Rob Kittle, 324 East Oak Street, stated the good cause is related to financial and planning reasons as well as the busy spring and summer seasons. Additionally, he stated the building is a cinder block building which complicates frost barriers and foundation work and noted builders have been busy. Audience Participation: Kevin Murray, Empire Carpentry, agreed with Mr. Kittle stating business is so busy they are scheduling a year a half out. He stated pulling permits early is risky in case changes are needed. Bear asked if this 6 month extension would be enough time. Mr. Murray replied in the affirmative, stating the only limiting factor would be winter weather. Board Discussion: Mr. Yatabe noted the merits of the original request are not what is before the Board; rather, the extension request would need to be granted based on the Board's interpretation of good cause. Bear stated it is difficult to hire construction workers at this time. Bello made a motion seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150045 base on the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the applicant has shown good cause for why the permit was not able to be pulled in the first 6 months of the variance and the Board would like to extend the variance for another 6 months, in which case, the permit needs to be pulled in that timeframe. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 6. APPEAL ZBA150046 -Approved Address: Petitioner: Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 4107 Mill Run Court Kevin Dewlen Samuel Bachar and Jill Hanek RL-Low Density Residential District 4.4(D)(2)(d) November 12, 2015 The variance request would allow a new attached garage to be built 2 feet into the required 15 feet side-yard setback. Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted this request has been approved by the HOA and an email was received indicating the support of four neighbors. Beals stated the lot is uniquely- shaped and discussed the plan for the attached garage, noting there is a 6-foot fence between the garage and the neighboring property. He stated staff is recommending approval of the request. Shuff asked if all other code requirements are being met. Beals replied in the affirmative. Kevin Dewlen, Stratton Homes, discussed the unique orientation of the home on the lot and stated the existing driveway jogs to the area of the proposed garage. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Bello asked if there is a code requirement involving the setback of the garage from the building face. Beals replied that does not apply in this zone district. Bear noted the support from neighbors and the HOA Shuff agreed and stated the encroachment is nominal and inconsequential. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150046 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the shape of the lot is quite unique and a new driveway would be required to place the new addition in a location that would comply, resulting in an excessive amount of vehicle use area in the front yard; therefore, due to the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property, a strict application of the standard would result in an undue hardship upon the applicant. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 7. APPEAL ZBA150047 Address: Petitioner: Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 4424 Denrose Court Seth Weiland, Husch Blackwell McDonalds, Archland Property CG-General Commercial District 3.8. 7(A)(3)(c) The variance will extend the seven-year period of time in which a nonconforming sign on the property annexed into the City limits has to be brought into compliance with the City's regulations. Specifically, the McDonalds' freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by December 20, 2012 (7 years from the date of annexation). A previous variance was granted in May of 2012 extending the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 November 12, 2015 compliance date by an additional 3 years. The variance request would extend the compliance date for another 3 years; until December 20, 2018. Beals showed slides relevant to the application, noting the property is near East Mulberry and 1-25. He stated the property was previously granted an extension on the need to comply with sign codes based on the fact they are surrounded by properties which are outside City limits and therefore do not need to comply. At this point, the owner is requesting an additional 3 years in which to meet the sign code as no development has occurred near the site within the city limits. Beals stated staff is recommending approval of the request as the only likely properties to be developed within City limits will likely take around 3 years for full completion. McCoy asked if new developments at that intersection would be required to be annexed. Beals replied some of the corners could probably still develop in the county, given that their borders are less than 1/6 contiguous with City boundaries. He noted any enclaved properties would be required to annex into the City within 3 years, should an enclave be created. McCoy asked about the County sign code. Beals replied it has differed from the City in the past; however, he believes the County has changed their code to meet more restrictive standards. Shuff asked if the signs on neighboring properties will need to come into compliance with the new County code within a certain period of time. Beals replied he believes those will be grandfathered; therefore, the existing neighboring businesses and competitors will likely not have to bring those signs into compliance. Seth Weiland, attorney for Husch Blackwell, presented the Board with photographs of the area and competing signs, stating signs placed prior to 2005 will be grandfathered in the County. He argued the subject property signs fit within the neighborhood; therefore the variance request is nominal and inconsequential within the context of the neighborhood. Additionally, he stated the sign provides a benefit to the public good as it aids in bringing in customers and therefore sales tax revenue. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: McCoy supported the extension noting a complying sign would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Stockover asked why the extension request is for 3 years. Beals replied the previous application was for a 10 year extension; however, the Board supported a 3 year extension in order to make the requirements equitable for new developments. Shuff supported the extension request for the reasons cited by the applicant. Stockover asked if it would be possible or prudent to give staff the ability to grant up to two 3-year extensions until and unless an enclave is created. Mr. Yatabe replied the granting of variances is under the purview of the Board rather than staff. Shuff suggested the Board should make those decisions. McCoy asked if there are plans to annex the Mulberry corridor area. Beals replied the only requirement to annex would result from an enclave being created; however, he noted right-of-way does not count in terms of creating an enclave. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150047 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, there are numerous signs of the approximate same size and height in close proximity to the subject Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 November 12, 2015 sign and those signs will remain long after the subject sign is modified in three years, the neighborhood around the subject property is predominately commercial and the majority of those commercial uses have signs that don't comply with the City's regulations, but since they are in the County, those signs are likely to remain for many years, certainly for many years past the three year extension being requested, removal of the McDonald's sign will have no immediate impact on the visual character of the area since many of the nearby signs are of the same size, some taller and larger, and an extension of only three years is reasonable and prevents consequences with regard to equitable treatment of future uses and buildings in the area within the immediate future; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and 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, Stockover, McCoy, Bello, Shields and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals showed some photos of the Artery sign, noting a variance for the sign was approved. He stated the sign is allowed to overhang the public right-of-way because the building is on the property line; therefore, it is impossible to keep the lighting levels contained on the property. He stated the sign does meet the code with the approved variances. Stockover suggested a possible future staff examination of sign code changes relating to lighting. Beals stated Council is requested input from Boards and Commissions regarding the Strategic Plan. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11 :05 a.m. Michael Bello, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 10, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA #150048 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1415 Parkwood Drive Petitioner/Owner: Dan Osborn Zoning District: RL Code Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(a) Variance Request: The variance request would allow a 20 sq. ft. sign to be placed in the front yard of a single family residential property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code section contains many regulations for the size, location and display of signs. The regulations were put in place for many reasons, such as but not limited to safety; over use of signs; and to preserve aesthetic appeal of property viewed from the public right of way. The Land Use Code does allow for identification signage on a single-family detached lot. This allowance is a maximum of 2 sq. ft. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends denying the variance requests and finds. • The request is a 1000% increase of the allowed 2 sq. ft. and therefore, not a nominal and inconsequential deviation. • The request does not meet the standard equally well or better than a proposal that meets the standard. • The request is not based on a hardship unique to the lot. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL # ZBA150048. Application to place historic Parkwood sign on my property Last summer the Parkwood community replaced their aging wood signs with granite signs. I obtained two of these signs and have restored them. This application is to place one of these signs on my property, 1415 Parkwood Drive, which is at the corner of Parkwood and Brookwood within the Parkwood community. These signs were the emblem for the Parkwood community for over 20 years. The placement on a corner, which faces a greenbelt, would enable the neighborhood to enjoy the historic sign without being intrusive of any of the neighbor’s views. Placement of the sign has been approved by the Parkwood Homeowners Association. The sign is approximately 20 square feet in size, 7’11” at its widest and 3’6” at it tallest. It is shown in the pictures below and on the next page in its placement, close to the ground, in front of my spruce trees. Google Earth View of 1415 Parkwood Drive showing sign placement, existing landscaping and surrounding houses. ZBA150048 – 1415 Parkwood Dr Large Sign Width 7.916667 Cir Ends 4.273889 HeightA 2.333333 Body 14.88889 HeightB 2.666667 half Cir 0.983976 HeightC 3.458333 Total 20.14675 Small Sign Width 5.75 Cir Ends 2.404063 HeightA 1.75 Body 8 HeightB 2 half Cir 0.613281 HeightC 2.625 Total 11.01734 -----Original Message----- From: James Dormer [mailto:j.dormer@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:50 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: Yard sign Hello Noah, Thanks for informing me about Dan Osborn and his yard sign proposal. It may be for nostalgic purposes, but I don't see much aesthetic benefit in a residential neighborhood such as ours -- especially with an already existing sign designating Parkwood. Would you advise me if there are other issues that I'm not aware of? Best wishes, James Dormer 1409 Rollingwood Lane Fort Collins, CO Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins Reference: Legal Public Hearing Notice, November 25, 2015 November 30, 2015 1404 Rollingwood Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 Zoning Variance Request by Dan Osborn for 1415 Parkwood Drive Appeal Number: ZBA150048 Dear Mr. Beals: I am responding in writing to your notice that Dan Osborn is requesting a code variance for his single-family residential property, adjacent to my Mother's, Betty De Vol. I have power of attorney for her. Per our phone conversation, he wants to have the old Parkwood Subdivision sign, which is 20 square feet, placed in his front yard. I agree with Dan that the old Parkwood sign was preferable to the new sign that the Parkwood Homeowners ultimately selected. However, his property is not located at the entrance to the subdivision. Installing the sign would only serve a purpose if it were placed within a few yards of the subdivision entrance. His proposal to place the sign further away from the entrance would be confusing, implying the first few homes within the subdivision are not actually part of the subdivision. Having the sign in his front yard would violate the Zoning Code, both legally and in spirit. We have a right to enjoy the neighborhood free of signage other than for temporary political support for candidates, sale of homes, etc. That is why we have the Zoning Code. I appreciate that Dan may be fond of the sign, and sincerely hope he can find enjoyment displaying it in his family room/game room/basement, or even inside his garage. Thank you, /~~Pn:1/&J Laura De Vol POA for Betty De Vol 1404 Rollingwood Lane Fort Collins Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 10, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA #150049 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 420 and 424 E Plum Street Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Owner: John & Jen Houska Zoning District: NCM Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Variance Request: The variance request involves two properties, 420 E. Plum St. and 424 E. Plum Street. The variance would allow two existing garages, built within 3 feet of the shared property line, to be modified creating one structure that straddles the shared property line. The required setback from the property line on both sides is 5 ft. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of variance request to allow two existing garages to be modified to create one structure or two attached structures, with the conditions that the garage space on 424 E Plum is for the use of the residents of the duplex, and the portion of the structure on 420 E Plum is reduced to 600 sq. ft. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The two properties are owned by the same person. Currently the two properties share a driveway that also straddles the property line. There are two existing garages; one on each property. Both garages are built within 3 ft. of the shared property line. The duplex at 424 E Plum is an approved duplex. 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 allow two existing garages to be modified to create one structure or two attached structures, with the conditions that the garage space on 424 E Plum is for the use of the residents of the duplex and the portion of the structure on 420 E Plum is reduced to 600 sq. ft.: • The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public good. • The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable square footage for each lot. • The proposal will reduce the amount of driveway than a plan that would require separate structures. • There is an existing shared driveway. • The existing structures currently do not meet the side yard setback. Therefore in the context of the neighborhood, the variance will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL #ZBA150049. Written Statement for a zoning variance request at 420 and 424 E Plum, Fort Collins John and Jen Houska of 420 E Plum would like to put an addition on to their existing garage. They would also like to put a garage on the lot next door at 424 E Plum which they own and rent out. The current garages, while functional and structurally sound are small (229 sq ft each) and are very close to the property line (20”) They would like to put on two garage additions that would be 14’-2” wide by x 28’ deep (397 sq ft) and 14’-2” wide by 24’ (340 sq ft) separated by a masonry wall in a zero lot line configuration. This falls well within the guidelines of the maximum square footage allowed in the back of Old Town lots. 1) A hardship exists in regards to the setback on the existing buildings causing them to be just over 3’ in distance to each other instead of 10’, The addition of a firewall and extended roof would make this building better. 2) The proposed addition would include putting a firewall between the existing structures. The addition of a firewall and extended roof would make this building better. Extending the buildings with additions consistent with the existing garage footprint would make the completed buildings equal to or better than the existing situation. 3) The proposed addition(s) would not diverge from the Land Use Standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This proposal would not adversely affect any neighbors (the Houskas own both lots). Even though it is set back well off the street. (122’) the addition/improvements would be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. The two lots now have a shared driveway. Though there is no intention of selling either of these by the owners, cooperation and understanding is needed by both lots. The proposed attached addition/improvements create a better overall situation for the rear of the lots. Dennis Sovick 750 Havel Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 dsovick@frii.com 970-556-1351 South (street side) Elevation West (yard side) Elevation at 420 12 exterior to match house 6 12 6 12 roofing to match house 14'-3" 14'-3" Pergola 6 lot line 420 424 existing garage new garage Elevations for proposed garages at 420 and 424 W Plum 8'-7" POWER 5'2" 8' 3'8" 12' 8' 2'6" 45'10" 12'9" 12' 8" 5'5" 2'2" 1'-8" 1'-8" 28'-0" 10'-0" STEPS 8" CITY SIDEWALK CURB DRIVEWAY HOUSKA HOME 6'6" 8'6" 12' 12'6" PINE TREE 36'-5 3/8" 25'-8" STEPS DUPLEX 12'3" 18'4" SHED EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING GARAGE SHED 420 East Plum 7500 sq ft 1 50' SHED 424 East Plum 7500 sq ft 50' 50' 150' Patio area GARAGE ADDITION ZERO LOT LINE/ MASONRY WALL 16'x12' OUTDOOR DINING DECK STEPS PERGOLA DOUBLE DOORS ADD John and Jen Houska Garage Additions 1'-8" 1'-8" 8" 6'6" 8'6" 12' 12'6" PINE TREE 12'3" 18'4" SHED EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING GARAGE SHED Patio area GARAGE ADDITION ZERO LOT LINE/ MASONRY WALL PERGOLA DOUBLE DOORS ADD 12'-6" 14'-2" 14'-2"' 24' 28' GARAGE ADDITION 397 sq ft 229 sq ft 229 sq ft 340 sq ft bbQ pit 10'-0" 185 sq ft 55 sq ft 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" setbacks setbacks setbacks setbacks 1" =10' 11/10/15 12'-6" 14'-2" 14'-2"' 24' 28' GARAGE ADDITION 397 sq ft 229 sq ft 229 sq ft 340 sq ft bbQ pit 10'-0" 185 sq ft 55 sq ft 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" setbacks setbacks setbacks setbacks 1" =10'