HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/11/2015Michael 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
JUNE 11, 2015
8:30AM
• Call to Order and Roll Call
Boardmembers Absent: Bello
• Citizen Participation (Items Not on the Agenda)
None
• Appeals for Variance to the Land Use Code
1. APPEAL #ZBA150015 (#2806) -Approved
Address:
Owner:
Petitioner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
965 Bungalow Court
Louis Sunderland
Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction
N-C-L
4. 7(0)(3) and 4. 7(F)(1 )(c)
At the May 14th, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) public hearing, this variance request was
tabled to the June ZBA hearing. In preparation for the June hearing, the variance request has been
amended. The existing structure exceeds the rear 50% of the allowable floor area by 25. 75 sq. ft. The
variance request would allow an additional 229 sq. ft. of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot
for a new 1 car garage. Included in the request is a variance to allow the garage to be placed at the
same setback from the street as the primary structure. A garage is required to be setback an
additional 1 O ft. from the front portion of the primary structure.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal, noting the lot is on the corner of Bungalow Court. He
stated Bungalow Court wraps around on two sides of this lot; therefore, the front door defines the
front of the lot, placing the majority of the house in the rear half of the lot. Beals discussed the appeal
Zoning Board of Appeals Page2 June 11, 2015
request for an additional 229 square feet of floor area in the rear half of the lot and the request to
place the garage at the same setback as the house, noting other properties in the area are similarly
oriented. Beals stated staff finds a hardship with this lot as it is far from the typical depth of a lot in
the area.
Applicant Presentation:
Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, Fort Collins, stated the existing home is already nonconforming
and discussed the need for the single-car garage. He stated the proposed orientation of the garage
would fit the context of the neighborhood.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Long stated the proposal appears to fit in with the homes in the area and stated the lot does present
challenges.
Shuff agreed and noted the subject's front yard opens to others' backyards.
Bear made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal No.150015 (2806) for the
following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good;
the lot depth Is 66 feet, shorter than the typical lot depth in the NCL zone district, the property
faces the rear lot and accessory buildings of neighboring properties; garage locations vary in
the block with some closer to the street; setting the garage further back to meet the standards
creates other non-compliant issues. The proposal, as submitted, will not diverge from the
standards in the Land Use Code except In a nominal and inconsequential way when
considered within the context of the neighborhood, the variance request may be granted due
to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the Code results
in practical difficulty upon the applicant.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
2. APPEAL #ZBA150023 (#2814)-Approved with condition
Address:
Owner:
Petitioner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
256 Linden Street
Property Creations, LLC
Brandon Silar, LARK Design/Build
D-Old City Center
3.8. 7(1), 3.8. 7(H)
At the May 14th, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) public hearing, this variance request was
tabled to the June ZBA hearing. In preparation for the June hearing, the variance request has been
amended. The request requires the following three variances: 1.) Allow a projecting sign to be 10.16
feet in height; the maximum height is 7 feet. 2.) Allow a projecting sign to have 21 sq. ft. of sign area
per face; the maximum area per face is 12 sq. ft. 3.) Allow the flush wall sign to extend an additional
6 inches from the allowed 12 inches from the building face.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the adjustments made to the variance
request since the May meeting. He stated staff is still recommending denial of the first two variance
requests and approval of the third, but noted the applicant did reduce the size of the proposed signs.
Applicant Presentation:
Brandon Silar, Lark Design/Build, 607 E 5
1
h St, Loveland, stated the proposed sign sizes have
decreased. He went on to address concerns of one of the neighboring properties.
Shields asked how much sign area is allowed on the building and how much is being proposed. Mr.
Sitar replied 2 square feet of signage per linear foot of frontage is allowed; therefore, 300 square feet
is allowed and the proposed sign is less than half of that square footage.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Page3 June 11, 2015
Bear asked if there are any similar signs in the neighborhood. Long replied the Lyric Cinema has a
similar sign, and Beals stated there may be some larger signs in the area that are non-conforming.
Shuff stated the issue is more related to the height and projection of the sign rather than the square
footage.
Long stated the sign fits the building; though it does not meet Code.
Stockover asked if this would be all the signage allowed on the building if this were to be approved.
Beals replied the applicant would be allowed to use the remainder of their allotted square footage.
Shuff noted the Board could add a condition to an approval.
Stockover commended the sign as fitting the building and its location and stated he is not concerned
about setting a precedent. He did recommend limiting additional signage on the Linden frontage.
Shuff noted the applicant may want to place poster signs which would not be as imposing. Mr. Silar
stated a 4 square foot per side projection sign currently exists on the Linden side and flush mount
indicators for the door frontages are planned as are three poster signs.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if other business will be placing signage on the building. Kent
Bradley, building owner, replied the upstairs is occupied by an artist co-op and the goal is to support
the community artistically, not to place a large sign on the building.
Bear stated she is struggling with this decision as the sign, aesthetically, it is equal to or better than a
complying sign; however, she expressed concern with diverging from the sign code. She also
expressed concern regarding placing limits on additional signage.
McCoy stated he likes the sign and asked if a variance could be granted due to the location of the
building on a corner of two wide streets, which would make it difficult for the sign to block others'
advertising.
Shuff noted the sign is over 70 feet from any neighboring properties and therefore may be more
appropriate. Additionally, she noted the building is unique in that it is relatively nondescript.
Stockover asked about the grandfathering of the Northern and Armstrong signs. Beals replied he
was unsure; however, he noted the Northern sign is historically protected.
Stockover commended the effect of the sign code on the City and stated he rarely supports a sign
variance; however, he stated this sign fits the building and the area. He stated he would like to limit
additional signage on the second story along Linden, noting an appeal could always be granted at a
later time.
Long stated this sign improves the building; therefore, equal to or better than criteria seem to apply.
Bear expressed concern regarding a condition limiting additional signage.
Shuff agreed with Bear, but suggested the possibility of limiting projecting signs.
Bear discussed the practicality of placing limitations on the appeal.
McCoy stated he would prefer to look only at this request. Long agreed with McCoy.
Stockover stated the applicant could always submit for another appeal. He asked the applicant if he
would be opposed to a condition that no additional signage be allowed on the Linden Street fa9C1de
without approval of the Board. Mr. Silar replied it would be acceptable for the Board to limit signage
beyond the door entry signs, poster signs, and the existing sign.
Bear stated she could support the 21 square feet and the flush wall sign extending six inches as
being equal to or better than; however, she could not support the ten feet, two inches in height.
Shuff stated she would support the sign height because it is vertical and narrow.
Long agreed with Shuff citing the scale of the building.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page4 June 11, 2015
Shuff stated the sign is an appropriate size given the scale of the building and its distance from
neighboring properties.
Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal No. 150023 (2814) for the
following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good;
the sign as proposed would promote the purpose of the Code equal to or better than one that
follows the strict application of the Code because It Is a corner property and would allow a
projecting sign on both street faces for a total of 24 square feet, whereas the proposed
projecting sign could be a total of 21 square feet per sign face. Additionally, the sign would
be 70 feet from any neighboring properties and will therefore not obstruct views of
neighboring signs. Also, the proposed signage is less than half of what is allowed, which Is
approximately 300 square feet of signage and allowing the sign to be 10 feet 2 inches in height
is nominal and inconsequential due to the verticality and narrowness of the sign. Lastly,
allowing the flush wall sign to extend 6 inches more than the allowed 12 inches from the face
of the building Is not the entire length of the sign and the variance Is for a corner of the
building making it difficult to see the entire sign at a single point of view and Is therefore
nominal and Inconsequential. Additionally, the Board would impose a !imitation on any
additional slgnage on the Linden Street side to be no more than 7 square feet per sign face as
well as the existing signs as currently installed.
McCoy opposed the limitations in the motion.
Shuff clarified the motion should state that there be no additional signs greater than 7 square
feet, other than what is existing, on the Linden Street face of the building.
Mr. Silar requested the poster signs be references as standard poster-sized cabinets rather than 7
square feet.
Shuff modified the motion to state 7 square feet or a standard poster cabinet sign.
The Board held a brief discussion regarding standard poster sizes.
Stockover suggested a prohibition on additional signage on the second story of the Linden Street
face.
Shuff questioned where the second story begins. Stockover replied it would be above the sill of the
second story windows.
Shuff amended the motion, seconded by Stockover, to eliminate the previous limitations and
stated the variance approval would be conditioned upon the fact that no additional signage
would be allowed above the second floor height on the Linden Street face. The vote on the
motion was as follows: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: Bear.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. APPEAL #ZBA150027-Approved with condition
Address:
Petitioner/Owners:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
1921 Sheely Drive
Al and Gloria Boersch
R-L
3.8.16(E)(3)(c)
The variance is to reduce the recess period from 2 months to 0 months requirement for renewing a
Host Family Permit.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal noting the driveway allows plenty of tandem parking. He
stated the Code allows a family to have one additional non-related person to live in the same
dwelling; however, the Code allows for a host family permit which allows a family to provide housing
for two non-related persons to live with a family for up to ten months with a two month break before
applying for another permit. He stated this particular situation involves an older couple who has
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 11, 2015
invited another couple to live with them and provide assistance. Additionally, Beals stated staff is in
support of the appeal given the size of the driveway and the age of the occupants.
McCoy asked if this permit would need to be reissued every year. Eric Keselburg, Neighborhood
Services Code Compliance, replied the applicant would need to reapply on an annual basis; however,
this would allow the additional couple to live there without vacating for two months and this variance
should apply to just these individuals rather than the property itself.
Applicant Presentation:
Alan Boersch, 1921 Sheely Drive, stated he and his wife have sought the assistance of Kevin Jones
and his wife.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bear made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 150027 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the request
is for two couples to live together with no dependents; the request is to accommodate the
ability for one couple to provide assistance to an older couple; the request is to allow four
adults who are older than the typical college-age student to live together; the property has
adequate off-street parking for the vehicles owned by the residents. The variance request will
not diverge from the standards but in a nominal an inconsequential way when considered
within the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code. Additionally, the variance would be attached to the owners, Al and Gloria Boersch,
and not to the property Itself.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. APPEAL #ZBA150024 - Approved
Address:
Owners:
Petitioner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
330 Smith Street
Paul and Beverly Wehr
Anthony Baietti, Build Smart Fort Collins
N-C-M
4.8(E)(3)
The variance request will allow an addition to match the existing dwelling 4 ft. encroachment into the
required 15 ft. corner side-yard setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal, noting the property is at the corner of Smith Street and
East Magnolia Street. He stated the existing house already encroaches into the side yard setback by
four feet and the request is to build an addition to match the existing setback. He stated staff is
recommending approval of the variance as the addition is only 8 feet in length and is only 8% of the
total length along Smith Street.
Applicant Presentation:
Anthony Baietti, petitioner and general contractor, stated the owners would like to accommodate
guests and family and the existing square footage is not adequate for their needs. Additionally, he
stated this scenario has been found to allow the most space with the least impact.
Long asked if there is an old porch. Mr. Baietti replied that old porch has been demolished.
Audience Participation:
Majel Martin, 608 East Magnolia Street, stated the construction involved in removing the old porch
and digging the basement hole combined with heavy rains, and has pushed the retaining wall under
the fence into her property. She supported the construction, but asked if the applicant would consider
repairing the retaining wall.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 June 11, 2015
Shuff stated the Board cannot specifically address her concerns unless Ms. Martin has support or
objection to the specific variance request.
Board Discussion:
Beals stated a building permit has not yet been issued; however, a demolition permit has been
issued.
McCoy asked why a variance is required if the structure already encroached. Beals replied the
structure was built prior to the new Code and is therefore non-complying. Any new structure needs to
comply with current Code requirements.
Shuff stated the request is nominal and inconsequential and supported the variance.
Shuff made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal No. 150024 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the
variance request to allow an addition to encroach four feet into the required .fifteen foot
setback matches the encroachment of the existing structure and Is only 8 feet In length along
Smith Street, which Is only 8% of the total Magnolia Street frontage; therefore, the va_riance
request would not diverge from the standard but In a nominal and Inconsequential way when
considered within the context of the neighborhood and would continue to advance the
purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. APPEAL #ZBA150025-Approved
Address:
Petitioner/Owner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
1212 East Vine Drive
Sterling Crane, LLC
T
4.12(B)(1)(b)
The variance will allow the existing office/maintenance shop building to be enlarged by 1,000 sq. ft.
and will allow the existing building height to be increased by approximately 8 ft. The 1,000 sq. ft.
addition will be new office space. The property is in the T zone, which requires that a variance be
obtained for any proposed new construction. The tenant and use of the property will 'not change.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal noting this variance request was approved in April of 2014
but has expired as building permits were never pulled.
Dick Ferchak, owner of 1212 East Vine Drive, interjected that the existing structure will stay the same
size, with a 1,000 square foot addition at the northeast corner, but wilt have a new shell to meet
Code.
Beals stated the property is in the T - Transition zone which requires any changes to come before the
Board for approval.
Shields asked when a Transition zoned property gets changed to another zone district. Beals replied
that change usually occurs when a development or redevelopment occurs.
Shuff stated this is not a change of use; therefore, the recommendation is for the property to remain
in the T zone.
Bear asked if the houses across the street were within the notification area. Beals replied in the
affirmative and stated he did not receive any communication from any of the notified properties.
Long noted there is a large berm between the houses and this property.
Applicant Presentation:
Dick Ferchak, owner of Sterling Crane, 1212 East Vine Drive, addressed the Board.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 June 11, 2015
Mr. Ferchak stated the use of the property would remain the same with the additional office space
which is needed due to expansion of the company.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Long stated the land will likely change in use in the future and supported this transitional use.
Beals noted the surrounding area is zoned LMN.
Long made a motion, seconded by Bear, to approve Appeal No. 150025 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; a hardship
exists if the Board does not grant a variance since a variance is the only way the addition can
be approved while the property is in the T zone.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
6. APPEAL #ZBA150026-Approved with condition
Address:
Petitioner/Owners:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
201 South Grant Avenue and 807 West Oak Street
Eric Odell
N-C-L
4. 7(0)(1 ), 4. 7(E)(3), 4. 7(E)(4)
The request is to move a property line that divides an existing garage. Moving the property line would
place the entire garage onto one parcel. This request would require the following three variances:
1.) Allow the existing garage to encroach 13 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. 2.) Allow
the existing garage to encroach 3 feet into the required 5 feet sideyard setback. 3.) Allow the lot size
at 807 W. Oak Street to be reduced to 5,671 square feet; 329 square feet less than the required
minimum 6,000 square feet lot size.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal stating the applicant is seeking to replat the property so
the property line is extended, allowing the entire garage to exist on the Grant Avenue property. Beals
discussed the implications of this change on setback requirements and lot size. He stated staff is
recommending a condition to the variance approval; that one off-street parking space, accessed off
the alley, is provided at the Oak Street property.
Applicant Presentation:
Eric Odell, 201 S. Grant Avenue, property owner, stated he owns both properties. The intent is to
provide the garage for the Grant Avenue property and off-street parking for the Oak Street property.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bear stated the property line boundaries will outlive the functionality and use of the garage and
expressed concern about creating a potential hardship on a lot in the future in order to satisfy a
temporary structure.
Shuff stated the garage is in good shape and will exist for quite some time. Additionally, she noted a
structure straddling a property line is not Code-compliant.
Long agreed with Shuff.
Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal No. 150026 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public good; the
variance requests do not Include any new structures and very little visible changes to the
properties; the existing structure at 807 West Oak Street still meets the allowable floor area
and setback standards; therefore, the variance requests will not diverge from the standards
but in a nominal an inconsequential way when considered within the context of the
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 June 11, 2015
neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in
Section 1.2.2. Additionally, one off-street parking space for the 807 West Oak Street property
will be required to be accessed from the alley.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: Bear.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. APPEAL #ZBA150028 -Approved
Address:
Owner:
Petitioner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
251 Boardwalk Drive
Maguire Properties, LLC
Randy Lerich, Action Signs
E
3.8.7(E)(8)
The variance request is to allow a sign logo height to increase an additional 2.25 in. from the allowed
24 in. maximum height.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal stating the property is at the corner of Boardwalk and
John F Kennedy. He stated the signs meet the letter height requirement; however, the logo height is
beyond the allowed 24 inches. He stated staff is recommending approval as the increase in height is
just for the logo.
Applicant Presentation:
Randy Lerich, Action Signs, stated this variance would allow the corporate sign to be more in
proportion to the building. The intent is to repurpose a sign.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bear stated this request is nominal and inconsequential.
Shields noted the east side logo "flower'' is 2.25 inches over and the west side " i " is 4.25 inches over
the allowed height.
Long stated the proposed sign fits the building.
Bear made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 150028 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the
increased height is not for the entire length of the sign but just on top of the letter " i "; the
logo is incorporated in the letters of the sign making the increased height less visible.
Therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standards but in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and will
continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Additionally, the variance request is for a 2.25 inch increase on the east elevation and 4.25
inch increase on the west elevation. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, Bear, McCoy and Shields.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
8. APPEAL #ZBA150029 -Approved
Address: 517 Edwards Street
Petitioners/Owners: Douglas Bennett
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(E)(3)
Project Description: The variance will allow a 132 sq. ft. addition to match the 2 ft.
encroachment into the required 5 ft. rear-yard setback of the existing garage.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page9 June 11, 2015
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal noting that one home, straddling a lot line, was
demolished. Two new single-family detached structures have been built; one on one lot and one on
the other. The demolition did not include the detached garage, which is not in compliance with
current standards. He stated the proposed garage addition only encroaches into the rear setback two
feet because it is five feet off the alley and noted staff is recommending approval of the variance
request given the addition is only 15% of the lot's frontage along the alley; the rear setback is to an
alley, and the addition is limited to a single story with a 9 foot eave height.
Applicant Presentation:
Douglas Bennett, 521 North Whitcomb Street, stated this project would allow for a two-car garage to
be built in the same style as other garages in the area.
Stockover asked if this will be a complete rebuild of the garage. Mr. Bennett replied there will be a
new roof system but he is unsure if there will be new siding.
Stockover asked if the existing floor is concrete. Mr. Bennett replied in the affirmative and stated
there will be new structural elements.
Stockover asked if there would be any way to bring the structure into compliance given it is close to a
complete rebuild. Mr. Bennett replied he is attempting to maintain as much yard as possible and
maintain the existing footprint.
Audience Participation:
Christina Kuroiwa, owner of 523 Edwards Street, expressed concern about the possibility of the
garage rebuild causing increased surface water and alley drainage issues. She discussed a letter
she wrote to Glen Schlueter at the Stormwater Department regarding flooding issues and stated she
is concerned about surface water flooding down the alley. Ms. Kuroiwa went on to discuss
conversations held between the property owner, Mr. Schlueter, and herself indicating Mr. Schlueter
would not have approved the new construction plans. Her garage is downhill from the appeal
property. She invested in French drains to help with drainage issues.
Paul Evangelista, co-owner of 523 Edwards Street, stated engineers have indicated that the new
house next door has contributed to the drainage issue. He stated the French drain they have
installed has worked; however, they are still dealing with water coming from the alley.
Long asked if the placement of a gutter on the addition to run water into the yard rather than the alley
would be helpful. Mr. Evangelista replied he was unsure and noted neither the contractor,
homeowner, nor City has taken any responsibility for this problem.
Shuff sympathized with the situation; however, she noted the purview of the Board is limited to the
setback issue. She recommended the concerned parties pursue the civil issue with other avenues.
Board Discussion:
Bear questioned the definition of inconsequential with regard to impacts. Deputy City Attorney
Eckman replied the setback standard itself is what is considered when discussing inconsequentiality.
He noted the variance approval may be considered detrimental to the public good should the
stormwater issue be of concern to the Board.
Long stated he is sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns but admitted they do not weigh heavily on
this particular request.
McCoy asked if the homeowner could build a new garage if one did not exist. Beals replied in the
affirmative and stated the owner could still demolish this garage and build a new one as well.
McCoy stated moving the garage could potentially make the situation worse; therefore, he stated he
supported the variance.
Shields asked if a building permit is in place. Mr. Bennett replied the application for the permit has
been submitted and noted a grading plan is not required due to the size of the proposed addition.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 June 11. 2015
Shields asked why the floor of the garage is proposed to be raised by pouring concrete over the
existing floor. Mr. Bennett replied that would save the construction of a new foundation.
Stockover expressed concern with the proposal stating the setbacks could likely be met if the garage
were to be reconstructed. He suggested requirements be made regarding gutters and proper
drainage into the north side of the building.
Bear stated the Board needs to make the affirmative statement that this is not detrimental to the
public good and given there are two parties stating it is detrimental, she stated she cannot support the
request.
Stockover argued the garage could be rebuilt and moved without any need to go_ before the Board
and that situation could potentially make the drainage worse.
Bear replied that is an assumption and stated she cannot make the statement this request is not
detrimental to the public good.
Shuff stated the Board needs to evaluate whether or not the encroachment into the setback is
detrimental to the public good. She stated the decision on this request cannot be changed based on
things that should be regulated by other entities.
Long stated the debate is only about two feet. Bear replied she cannot make the affirmative
statement the variance is not detrimental to the public good.
Shuff asked about the Code requirements regarding drainage. Beals replied his purview relates to
setbacks; however, his understanding is that neighbors cannot be negatively impacted, though that
would be a Stormwater Department review.
Stockover asked if the Board could require the Stormwater Department to do a cursory review.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that would be outside the jurisdiction of the Board.
Long stated he generally opposes conditioning approvals and stated he trusts gutters will be installed.
McCoy made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal No. 150029 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the addition
is 15% of the total property frontage to the alley, the rear yard setback Is from an alley and not
an abutting residential property, the addition Is limited to one story with an eave height of 9
feet; therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and will
continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained In Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: Bear.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
9. APPEAL #ZBA150030-Approved
Address:
Petitioner/Owner:
Zoning District:
Code Section:
Project Description:
612 East Pitkin Street
Pat McGaughran
N-C-L
4.7(F)(5)
The variance request will allow a new home to be built with an attached garage that will be accessed
from an existing street.
(**Secretary's note: Shuff withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.)
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the request to use an existing curb cut for
the new attached garage access rather than the alley. He noted many other houses in the area have
street access to their garages and stated staff is recommending approval of the request.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 June 11, 2015
McCoy asked why a variance is required. Beals replied, because the building is new construction,
the garage must meet the Land Use Code requirement to take access from the alley when an alley is
present.
Applicant Presentation:
Pat McGaughran, 824 Whedbee Street, stated he intends to move his residence to this location
where a one-story residence is planned. He stated he and an architect have determined using the
existing curb cut would be the most optimal design for the property.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
Bear stated this seems to fit the character and context of the neighborhood.
Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. 150030 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; a majority
of the neighboring properties are built with the same condition that is being requested, the
existing home currently enjoys an attached garage that accesses from the street, there are no
opposing neighbors; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in
a nominal and Inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood
and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shields and McCoy. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
• OTHER BUSINESS
None
• ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11 :37 a.m.
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning