Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/2016 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingHeidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson 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 SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 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 ZBA160022 Address: 1625 W. Trilby Road Petitioner/Owner: Matthew Ehrlich Zoning District: R-U-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description The variance request is to allow a 7,200 square feet accessory building on a 5.3 acre parcel Rural Lands District (R-U-L). In the R-U-L zone district the maximum accessory building size in 2,500 square feet. (This item was tabled at the August ZBA Regular Meeting) 2. APPEAL ZBA160024 Address: 1218 Canvasback Court Petitioner: Evan Swift, Swift Builders, LLC Owners: Xiang Hong Lee Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description The variance request is to allow a 224 square foot addition to a single family residence. In the R-L (low density residential) zone district, the maximum square footage you can build on a lot is 1/3 of the lot square footage. The residence to lot percentage is currently at 34.6% and after the proposed addition the number would increase to 37.6%. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 September 8, 2016 3. APPEAL ZBA160025 Address: 414 E. Pitkin Street Petitioner/Owners: Mark and Angel Hoffman Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(5) Project Description The variance request is to allow an accessory building to have an additional 300 square feet of floor area; the maximum square footage allowed is 600 square feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA160026 - WITHDRAWN 5. APPEAL ZBA160027 Address: 899 Riverside Avenue Petitioner: DaVinci Sign Systems Owners: D and N Houska Family, LLC Zoning District: C-L (Limited Commercial) Code Section: 3.8.7(G)(6) Project Description The variance request is to allow a second ground sign to be installed along Riverside Avenue. The maximum number of ground signs allowed along a street frontage is one sign. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 8, 2016 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA160022 (This item was tabled at the August ZBA Regular Meeting) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1625 W. Trilby Road Petitioner/Owners: Matthew Ehrlich Zoning District: R-U-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a 7,200 square feet accessory building on a 5.3 acre parcel Rural Lands District (R-U-L). In the R-U-L zone district the maximum accessory building size in 2,500 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to allow a 7,200 square foot accessory structure to be built exceeding the allowed maximum of 2,500 square feet. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is zoned Rural Lands (R-U-L) District. In the Land Use Code the R-U-L district, in comparison with other zone districts, has the largest minimum lot size for single family detached use. In the R-U-L the size of an accessory building is determined by the lot size it is on. As the lot size increases the accessory building can also increase in size as shown in the table below. Lot Size Accessory Building Size 20,000 sf 800 sf. 20,000 sf. >1 acre 1,200 sf. 1+ acre 2,500 sf. In the R-U-L Zone district there is not a maximum number on accessory structures. Any number of accessory structures could be built. Additionally, these structures do not have a minimum separation distance from each other. The thought has been that lot sizes and setbacks are sufficient enough to limit the number of structures. The R-U-L district was formed after the accessory building sizes were created. At the time the accessory building sizes were created, the U-E zone had the largest minimum lot size of all the zone districts at a half an acre. Therefore, the above chart showing 1+ acre allowing a 2,500sf accessory building was simply doubling the U-E zone’s minimum half acre lot size requirement and accessory building size. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval to allow a 7,200 sf accessory structure to be built exceeding the allowed maximum of 2,500 sf and finds: • These requests are not detrimental to the public good. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 • The accessory building is in compliance with height and setback standards. • The same amount of square footage could be built in multiple accessory buildings. • The lot size is substantially larger than the minimum lot size to build a 2,500 sf accessory structure. • The structure is still required to meet the minimum side setback along both the east and west property line of 50 feet. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL #ZBA160022. Photos taken from 1544 Forrestal Drive Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 8, 2016 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA160024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1218 Canvasback Ct Petitioner: Evan Swift, Swift Builders, LLC Owner: Xiang Hong Lee Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a 224 square foot addition to a single family residence. In the R-L (low density residential) zone district, the maximum square footage you can build on a lot is 1/3 of the lot square footage. The residence to lot percentage is currently at 34.6% and after the proposed addition the number would increase to 37.6%. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to allow an additional 224 square feet to a single family residence increasing the allowed square footage to 37.6% for the lot. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is located in the Paragon Point P.U.D. Phase Four subdivision. This subdivision was approved by the City in 1993. The current Zoning of the property is Low Density Residential (R-L) Zone District. Within the R-L, the minimum lot size 6,000 square feet and the minimum square footage is 1/3 the lot the size. This property is 7,526 square feet, which allows for 2,508 square footage of building. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval to allow an increase of allowable square footage to 37.6% of the lot size and finds: • The variance request will not be detrimental to the public good. • The addition meets the side and front setback requirements. • The addition aligns with the current building walls. • The request is a 4.6% increase to allowable square footage of the lot. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL #ZBA160024. ATTORNEYS LICENSED IN COLORADO & WYOMING STEVE@JOUARDPICKERING.COM BOB@JOUARDPICKERING.COM JOUARD & PICKERING, P.C. Attorneys at Law STEPHEN J. JOUARD 2038 CARIBOU DRIVE, SUITE 100 ROBERT G. PICKERING FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 TELEPHONE: (970) 482-1977 FACSIMILE: (970) 225-6649 September 1, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins c/o nbeals@fcgov.com Re: Appeal No.: ZBA160024 Applicant: Xianghong Lee, Owner; Evan Swift Contractor Objector: Robert G. Pickering and Patricia L. Pickering Dear Members of the Board: Interests Of The Undersigned Along with my wife, Patricia L. Pickering, I have owned a residence across from the subject property at 1218 Canvasback Court since 1995. Our residence at 1225 Canvasback Court faces the subject property and is located approximately 35 feet from the property line of 1218 Canvasback Court. Other than Mr. and Mrs. DuShane, we are the only original property owners within the envelope for notice of this hearing. I was one of the first non-developer members of the Board of Directors of the Paragon Point PUD Community Estates Association. The Zoning Standard And The Subject Application For Variance. Paragon Point PUD Community Estates is zoned as a R-L Low Residential District and has been designated as R-L since we purchased our residence on October 27, 1995. Zoning Code Section 4.4(D)(1) provides: Density. All development in the Low Density Residential District shall have a minimum lot area the equivalent of three (3) times the total floor area of the building, but not less than 6,000 square feet. According to the Notice of Hearing, as constructed in 1995, 1218 Canvasback Court’s original residence to lot percentage was 34.6% which already exceeded the 33 1/3% zoning standard. The Applicant seeks to expand the percentage of residence to lot percentage to 37.6% by adding a 224 square feet onto the living room at the front of the home. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 2 Although not clear based upon the limited information provided, it appears that the request for variance is to allow for a home occupation in the form of a home office of unknown character. The Residence Which Is The Subject Of This Application For Variance. Paragon Point PUD Community Estates is divided into four different neighborhoods. The subject residence currently has 3,992 of finished square footage and a three car garage. While the Assessor’s site states that the residence is a two story building, there is a full walkout basement which generates three stories in the rear of the home. The front of the home currently looks like the photograph depicted below. The proposed expansion will occur onto the front of the living room. 1 If the requested variance is granted, the finished square feet of the home will rise to 4,216 square feet. The lot size is listed on the Assessor’s site as 7,528 square feet. If the variance is granted, the total finished square footage (including basement finish square footage, but excluding the three car garage) to lot size will be 56 per cent. The three car garage on the front of the home already abuts the 20’ front lot set back. If granted, the variance will bring the remainder of the structure forward so that the entire house abuts the 20’ set back on the street in close proximity to the cul-de-sac. The 1 The subject Lee property is on the right. The DuShane property is on the left. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 3 rear set back will remain at 43.93 feet. There are no residence lots adjoining the rear of the residence, but rather open space consisting of ponds on fossil creek and north of the ponds a swimming pool and other recreational facilities. There are 5 permanent residents of the household, i.e. three adults and two children. According to the Assessor’s records, there remain four bedrooms and four bathrooms which would fully accommodate the current five residents of the home. The owners of the residence operate a restaurant known as the Chili House which serves Chinese, Thai, Japanese, and Malaysian cuisine. The current owners use the three residence garages for storage of restaurant fixtures and a supply including what appears to be vats of cooking oils. Food is dried on the front porch and driveway for cooking use. With the filing of this application, some restaurant storage has been moved out. Historical Use Of The Subject Property. The only other owners of the property were Peter and Penny Kast. Mr. Kast is a commercial real estate broker. The Kast family owned the property from April 1, 1995 to September 15, 2006. The Kast family occupied the home with their three daughters. I know that at the time the five members of the Kast family occupied the home, there were four bedrooms and four bathrooms. According to the Assessor’s records, there remain four bedrooms and four bathrooms which would fully accommodate the current five residents of the home. Mr. Kast did have a home office which he used as an adjunct to his real estate brokerage business, although no employees were present in the home. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 4 The Standard of Review To Be Applied By The Board On Appeal. Zoning Code Section 2.10.2 (H) states: Step 8. (Standards): Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner’s ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant; (2) the proposal as submitted 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 as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2) or (3). Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 5 I. There Is No Basis To Grant The Extraordinary Remedy of Variance. A. Applicants Cannot Bear Their Burden of Establishing That Strict Application Of The Standard Sought To Be Varied Would Result In Unusual And Exceptional Practical Difficulties, Or Exceptional Or Undue Hardship Upon The Occupant Of Such Property. The floor plan submitted to the Board indicates that the proposed expansion to the front of the current living room is for a home office. There will be no exceptional or undue hardship upon the Applicants if a variance is denied for the following reasons: • Applicants must shoulder the “burden of proving that the variance would avoid unnecessary hardship or was reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.” Monte Vista Professional Bldg., Inc. v. Monte Vista, 35 Colo. App. 235, 239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975). • “Variances should not be used as a way to avoid the normal processes of amending zoning resolutions.” Murray v. Board of Adjustment, Larimer County, 42 Colo. App. 113 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). • "The power to grant a variance in the application of established zoning regulations should be exercised charily. . . . The obvious reason is that unless great caution is used and variations are granted only in proper cases, the whole fabric of . . . zoning will be worn through in spots and raveled at the edges until its purpose in protecting property values and securing an orderly development of the community is completely thwarted”. Murray v. Board of Adjustment, Larimer County, 42 Colo. App. at 115-116 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979), quoting, Heady v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 139 Conn. 463, 94 A.2d 789 (1953). • “[P]urchase of property with knowledge of an extant zoning restriction constitutes self-inflicted hardship which is at the very least a highly significant fact weighing heavily against the owner's efforts to change the zoning classification.” Cottonwood Farms v. Board of County Comm'rs, 763 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1988). In terms of the request for variance beyond the 33 1/3% maximum, when Applicants bought the residence they knew or should have known of the existing percentage of residence to lot R-L requirements. • “The hardship or practical difficulty upon which the need for a variance is premised . . . it must be of a type peculiar to this property owner and not shared by others.” Murray v. Board of Adjustment, Larimer County, 42 Colo. App. at 115-116 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). Applicants cannot demonstrate anything unique to Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 6 the property or to them that requires variance. In fact, Applicants residence already exceeds the maximum existing percentage of residence to lot R-L requirements. • The home was historically occupied by the same number of persons as now occupy the home and a home office existed in the home at the time of its sale to the Applicants. • The home, as constructed, already exceeded the maximum allowable percentage of residence to lot percentage. • Applicant Lee purchased the home on September 15, 2006. • For the last ten years the home has been occupied by the same occupants under the same conditions. Applicants have not submitted evidence of and cannot establish any changed circumstances since the home’s purchase 10 years ago which would result in exceptional or undue hardship to them if the Application were denied. • According to the Colorado Secretary of State, Applicant Lee has been the President of a Colorado Corporation named Chili House Oriental Cuisine, Inc. since 2003 and has operated a restaurant known as Chili House located at 4200 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado since 2004. As with any business owner, it is incumbent upon that business owner to provide adequate space for administrative and office duties within the business. • According to the Assessor’s records, the Applicants own a residential condominium at 3945 Landing Drive, D7, Fort Collins, Colorado just blocks from the Chili House Restaurant. The condominium is a two bedroom/two bath residence with an attached single car garage and could, if so desired, be available for any extraordinary use. • On information and belief, Applicant Lee owns 4 other townhomes and two single family residences in Fort Collins, Colorado. See Assessor Property Search Results attached. If desired, Applicants could use one of the other 7 residences he owns for a home office. See Exhibit A. • Five persons live in 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms in 3,992 square feet of space at the residence which is the subject of this Application, i.e. 1218 Canvasback Court. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 7 o Five persons also live at 1231 Canvasback Court in a home with 2,250 finished square feet (residence and basement finish) in 4 bedrooms, 3 baths. o Five persons have recently lived at 1230 Canvasback Court in a home with 3,184 finished square feet (residence and basement finish) in 4 bedrooms, 3 baths. o At our residence, four persons have lived in 2,126 finished square feet in 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths. • The Governing Documents of Paragon Point PUD Community Estates provide “No Building or Improvements on any Lot shall be constructed or maintained and no alteration . . . of the exterior of any Building or Improvement situated on a Lot shall be performed unless the plans and specifications therefor have been first submitted and approved by the Committee (Architectural Control Committee) in writing. Among the plans required to be submitted are (1) a detailed site plan, (2) and engineered foundation plan by a licensed structural engineer addressing soil conditions [some homeowners have had substantial soil expansion problems in this neighborhood], (3) roof plan and floor plans, (4) samples of all exterior materials and colors, (5) exterior elevations, (6) cross-sections showing existing and proposed changes of elevations grades for street, lot, main floor and roof, (7) landscape plan, and (8) data on the qualifications of the contractor. See Exhibit B. Applicants have failed to establish that they have met any of these requirements or to even have contacted the Governing Board or ACC. • Applicants have failed to establish that the office cannot be located in other portions of the 3,992 square feet of finished space within the subject residence. • Applicants have failed to prove that there is a less intrusive means of accomplishing their goal by way of expansion of the home into the rear portion of the lot where there is an available tract with 53.97 feet x 43.93 feet. • Denial of one home occupation for an office does not create undue hardship much less denial of an additional home office. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 8 B. Grant of The Requested Variance Will Create Undue Hardship Upon Other Property Owners and the Public. Directly to the west of the subject property is a home owned by Neal and Joyce DuShane. The proposed expansion will add an addition of 17 feet on the front of the Lee Home only 10.55 feet from the DuShane structure. The living room of the DuShane structure is set back about 17 feet from its front garage. If the variance is granted, the new addition will block all views from the DuShane residence except those straight out the front window, i.e. in effect the addition will create a 3 sided box in front of the DuShane home 17 feet deep on both sides and 30 feet wide. The DuShanes will be living in a tunnel and this will significantly diminish their property values and, by that fact, all other adjoining property values. As the neighbor directly facing the DuShanes and Lees, our view will be changed from one with air and light space to one of a bowling alley effect. This, too, will adversely impact our property values. The amount of grass area available for water runoff will be greatly diminished on the street side. There already exists significant runoff and damming on the street which has resulted in heaving and concrete problems; so much so that the City has had to replace the blacktop and much of the concrete curbing. The runoff created by the additional roof and hard surface, loss of landscaped surfaces, and change of drainage will affect the City of Fort Collins street and other residential owners on the street. There have been no architectural variations or zoning variations of the type requested in the Paragon Point PUD Community Estates Association. There has been no change of character in the subdivision or this portion of the subdivision. Granting this variance will cause a major change in the character of the subdivision and create the wrong precedence for this R-L neighborhood without any showing of good cause. Conclusion. As much as I would like to attend the hearing on the Application, I cannot do so because I have a previously scheduled court appearance. However, my wife, Patricia Pickering, will personally appear at the Hearing to provide her views on the request. I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide this input and respectfully request that application for zoning variance be denied. Please call me if you have the need for any further information or if I might help in any other way. Thank you again for the opportunity to be heard. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins September 1, 2016 Page 9 Very truly yours, JOUARD & PICKERING, P.C. Original Signed by Robert G. Pickering Robert G. Pickering RGP:plp Enclosures: Exhibits A & B Property Records Search Result Services Departments Public Records News Jobs Business About 0 Larimer County Offices, Courts, and Landfill are all closed on Monday, Sept. 5, 2016 for the Labor Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not interrupted by closures. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures. Assessor Property Search Results You Searched For: Owner Name: LEE XIANG HONG Showing I to 8 of 8 entries Lee Xiang Hong Lee Xiang Hong Lee Xianghong I of I 6808 Colony Hills Ln 3945 Landings Dr D7 http://www.larimer.org/assessor/query/results.cfm Previous Next $ 158,300 $ 224,300! $207,400 80525 9/1/2016 1:44PM .... ~ to two. Maximum driveway width shall be JL8 fee·t; exce]pt at. turn-arounds and at aprons at gara~Jes, whj.cb widths shall be subject to Committee alpproval. 15. GarAge Orien:taj:ion i DOQ:t' fync:tion.s. 'l'b.e visu<ell i:nlpac:t of. garage doors are an important archil tecturaJL considera·t:lLo:n and will be minimized by such measures as siting of the lCli'OO't-!lling, protective overhangs or projections, and/or s'peciaJ. dor.>r facing materials. 16. lfOUse Numbers.. Each I,ot has been ass.i.gm:tcll a st~reei~ number which has been app:t:oved by the appropriate go~rerninq authority.. At the time of construct:ton of a Dwellin1gr o:n a Lot, the OWner shall be x·equiredl t;c> ·· prc)Vi.de a si.grt shaw.ing 'the assigned street number of the Lot:, readable :J:rom t:be s·treet:. 17. E!X:t~rior MQs;rhanigg,l Ewtit:•me;u;t. Net m~e·c'hanical equipment, including but not limited to, air conditioni.ng units and communicaticm devices, shall be. visually ex;p.osed 011 the exterior of any structure. If w1ique ciJ~oumstancea re.g[Utir•a exposure of mechanicaL! equipment and its location is acce:p·table to the Committee, the equipment shall be eitber incorpoJ:~at.sMi into the ovex·all form of the structure, andfor be pe:t.~.mantmtly screened by ar1 extem::ion of the. s1:r\llct:.ure aL:p:p:r~:>ved b:y ·the committee other than landscaping .. ~· 18. §wi,:mming PooJ,s. All poc,ls sball be loca·ted wi thiJo. rear yard areas a minimum distance of 1:en fee1::. fx·om sidlE~ or rear· building envelope lines. '.T.'he ')ools shall be fe1oced. 'lili.th a privacy type fence, aLS defined helo·w .. 19.. lJ:mg.i.nq. All fencing, prio1: to JLnst.all.ation, sJ:1all be approved in writing by thE~ Architeci:ux·al Cont.1:·ol Co:mmit.tet~t ax1d shall consist of a single approv~d d.esi91n .as 1:.o materi.al, ltJ.Edgrht and other matters which will be designated. by the Com:mi·t·tE:t.e~ 20. Enex;sr;y ccmraervation.. All dtJelli:ngs wil.l uaxce_191d .Jby nt::.t less than ten percent ( 10%) the m:lnimUJm Ccl!lox·ado Em~:r~n.r Cod•a requirements as now c:onsti tuted or a~; amend~acl as of th1e d.a·te o·f s·ubmission of the Lot owner's plan1; to ·tbE!l c:c•l'llllllit·teE~ fo::a:· i·ts approval. ,PTICLE V! Argh3.t.ectUrAl COP,.tlO·l Comm.itt·~ f?ectign Jr.. M£J:titec:t;J,lral QOJJ.t~t...:t.u.. Thq~re is hereby created the Paragon Point Planned Unit Oev;eJLopment. Architectural control Committee, h.el:-eina:f·ter. a:nd hereinlbe~fore 14 )l referred to as "Committee" for the purpose the property described in the prml1mble style and nature of lbuilding design wl'.a.ich area's physical setting. of mai.ntainingr w.it:h.in of tl'li.s Agree.ntent u · a is ho1nogrEmeous1 tc) the smgt!QD ;a. ~. The memhetrs of the cc:.:nmd.ttee, urLtil January 1, 1999 shall be Byron R. Collins, James Sell and Frank Vaught.. In the event of arty vacancy 0111 t!'.te Conmi tt.ee, Declarant shall hav•a the right to appoint a :repla.cll!!llltent. committee member. commencing January 1, 1999, the m.elln.t,ers shall each have one (1) year tenms and shall be1 elected. at thEJ~ annual meetil'lg of th•e Board of Direct-..,rs of thEt Ass:oc.i.at.i.~)f.L 4::l!X' at a special meeting of the ·Board C»f Direc·t<)rs called t:or i:~hat purpose. The members shall hold office until tlleb:· S'll.ltc:ce.ssors have been appointed a:nd hold t11eir first mee·tinq. Subsequent to January 1, 1999, any member of the Co:mmit:tee may be removed with or without cause by the Board oiE Directors of the Association a·t a special or l:'E~qtt:Lar meetiLiL9' t~ereof i!Ul<i CIL successor appointed ·t\o fill the unexpired tenm •:•:f 't:he lllleuiber :sc:~ removed. ~icm J.. co;rmni·t~ee MQeting:s .. The Chairman of the committee shall be .designat.e.ol from. among the members of the C01mnittee. The Chairma.n :shall t:<etke ~c:b.arge of ,JP and conduct all reqular and special meetings ar.td shall pro'\''ide for reasonable notice to each member of the Ct:)DIJD.i tt•ae ];~ll:'i•I::Jlc ·t:.c:1 any meeting, setting forth the plac::e, date aLlld t.imEt Ctf said 111eeting, which notice may be waived .. ) The affirmative v~ote of a Committee shall constitute the matters before it. majority of th•s~ membe~:t·s ojE tlrle act:i.ox1 of ·the Committee on any The Comm.ittee shall have s·ucb powers., p:a::·iv.ileg·es and immunities a1s are set forth in this l)ecla:l::'atic,n of Coven.lilln1::.~, conditions a1'1d. Restrictions, and shall, addltic)nai:ly~ hav·E~ t:.he power to adopt, from ti1ne to tim•a, rules and re.gfl:lla;tj_ons for the conduct and exercise of its busines:=~ and rule:s: ancl regulations for the conduct and exer:cise of its po~lier:s I' privileqes and immuni·ties which shall not be irr.ec:oncilably i.J:a conflict with this De,claration. The approval or c•onsent of the Comm:i.ttee on maa:t·t;erl5; IJ>l:"O:I?El:rly coming befor•a it shall be given o:Jt~ den:i.ed wi·tltlin a :t::·ill~SLSO:tl~Lble~ time after sulbmission, but in no event. to exc:::eecl 3() ci<a~:S''S Ul11Ea~s et writ·ten explanation requesting greater time to r1uJLe. of sectiQn i· ~ew its members, nor of Plans. Ueithex· the Cc•mmitte~e nor anlf"' the Declarant r nor their rill~SJ:"~ecti VEil 15 successors or assiqns, shall be liable in damages t.o anyonE~ who submitted plans to the Committe•e. fc):t' approval, or to any owne:r· affected by t..his Declaration, by reasoJra of any mistalc:e i1n judgment, neqliqence or nonfeasance arisilng out. of o:t· in connection with the approval or disapproval or fail't.llrfJ 1:.o approve any such plans and speci:fioations. Every Owner oJr <)the:~ person who submits plans to the Cc>mmi1:tee ft:>r appr·oval agrees, by submission of such plans and elpec.ificat:ions, that he wil.l not bring any actioll'l or suit against the Committee or Declarant or the membel:.-s of the Committee to recovelt~ any stlch dame:tg·es. Approval by 1:.he comm.:ittee shall not be d•etem.ed to con:stitube compliance wl th the requirements C)f any governmental buiJ.d.i:ng codes, and it shall he the responsilbil:tty of the Owner oJr other.· person submitting plans to the Colllli1li t·tee to c•:>mply therewith. Segtion !~.. Jurisciigtign. A. SubxB.ission 1co the Comuittee. No Buildir.tg ·OJ:' Improvements on any Jt.ot shall lbe constructed c>r mair1tained a:t1!d no altera·tion, repai1:1ting, refurbishing or ::;ulbstantial Jrepa.i:rs of the exter:Lor of any Building or :r~provell'll.en•t situated 011 C:l. I.ot shall lbe performed unless the planJ;' and spec.i.fica:tiom; th1!!l:~E~f·or have been first subm:ltted to and ap~n:oov·jed Jby the Comm.itt•~e. i:n. writing. B. Standards. In deterJtnining wheth•eu~· tc) appr·1:1ve or l disapprove plans and speciflcaticms submitted. t.o it, 1::h.e c:omm.ittee shall use its best judgment to 11msw:·e that <:Lll Buildings, other Improvements, J.andscapin•:r and aJLtera1t::i.cmts 11rithin the L<>t conform to and harmonize wi't:.h thEa l~equireJilLEl!ll'lt.s and restrict:tons of 1this Declaration. AJppr•:>val shall l:Ne based upon, among other things, adequacy t:)f building site dimensions, reasonable a.es·thetic etppeal, comp·ati.bili t.y wi t.h existing buildings, 1affect of location and use of Impro,ve1111.ent.s on contiguous Lots, the :r-equiremEmts on fU.e with the Ci'f:;y of Fort Collinsj, Colorado, with respect ·to the construction of any Building~~ upon the Property, the integrated natq;re .. of the Improvements on a palt:ticular Lot to thje :rmprove!lll\Emts on t:he Property, a~; a whol•e, the r1e:Lat.ionship •:)f tlu~ tc)pOidfraphy, grade iand finished grc:»und elevat:.ioll'll c•f 1:he Lo·t: bEdng jL:m.pr·t:>Vdi:tcl t;o that of contiguous Lc)ts and p:a~oper facdng· of the xaai:n elmtvat.l!::.:n with respect to the parking facilities. c. Approval. Any app:roval ot.· permission gran1::ed. by the Committee shall not !Oe constru;ed to constitute approval or permission by any official or co:mmieu;;iolra of any gc,verrooentl!i.l. agency. Obtaining permits, appl.;i.catio,ns or ot;her 1~r·riLtt:1m instJrum.ents J~equired lOy any P\lblic o.r ~;rov•errumental aqe11.c:y :i3ba1l be the sole respons.iloility of ·the a.pplic:.a.nt, and any appl:~c~'rl~.l 16 'I .; \ or permission granted by the committee shall not in any way Joe construed to mean acceptance of any submissiolll t:o any privat:~e or governmental agency. D. Varia.nces. The committee shall. have the right t.o qrant variances from the design standards UJ?Of.l said cause shown and to avoid or mitigate hardship of the t)articular lotj, tl'l~a Committee, in its sole discretion, shall be the judqe of whatever goodl cause o:z:· hardship existt:s and of the variances, :iLf any, permitted by the committee~ Section 6. Submiss~ons st~n~s. A.. Submission Procedures. l~pplic:::atioJ:lls fox.· approval of all structures, Buildings, sidewalks, •:mtl."'YWays 1 fenc:i.nq, signaqe, ext~erior liqhtinq, landscapinq or other I:mp:ro'lrements shall be submitted tc• the Committee at least ten (10) business days prior to the next meeting of the Com:rni·t"tE~e ft:)Jt' consideration at that meeting.. Two (2) srulbmissic1ns :roHay be required: a prelimimnry submission ar1d a firtal. submissi.on, which may be waived if the prelimh'lary submission is deemed adequate. B. Preli.minary StLbmission. The :Eorm ()f t.he applicat:.ion and submission criteria shall be es·tabl.ished b3r 1::.be Committee .aLn.d shall include the nstme and address of t.he bu:tlclE~r or C•ontrac·tor .~ who will be performinq thE~ work, · inc:luding subcontracto:r.·s a:s applicable, and the stamp c>f a. Colorado licensed archi·tec·t f t:)r plans submitted by a contracto1:; whc' has bc!len approv,ed. by ·the Committee. )' c. Submission of Plans. Thrc!e setfs: of plans and specifications shall be submitt.ed to 1t:.he Cc:>mmitt:ee .in a•ccorda:nce with the following submittal and x·eview proc::edures. D. Preliminary Submittal and Rcaview.. ll?relim.irtary ]plans, :including all of the exh1Lbits outlined belc:,w, are ·to lbt!! submitted to the Committee ten days pJrior to t.l'leix· :meetin~J c:latte .• The Committee shall conduct this preliminary review d·urin~r its next meeting date and will respot'ld- within te111 (l.O) working days after their :t·eview provided that the preliminary plans are in accordance wi.th requirements oui::.lin.eci below.. All preliminary plans shall irtclude: (1) Site plart (at no smallelc- tha11 lJ" = 30') ind.i(::clltb:tcy building loc:aLtion, driveliat.Y; parking and gradingr r:•l.arn.. Topography must be shown by cort1::ours at 2 foot inte:t"Vals wjLth flJ. base datum of sea level over the total Lot and extended approximately 50 feet outside 't..he lt..ot on all sides. Tc>:p of foundation elevation lltust be shown. 17 licensed profile, (2) subsurface soil inve~;tiqa·tion soils engineer which indicates soil bearing, atnd water table. :by a ICf.)llc~raclo struc:rt11.1.1t~e and (3) other criteria as may be eEatablishe.d. :by the Committee. E. Final Submitta.l and Review. Af't.el7 Jt•t~eli.:ll'lina.:t:y •ar:»p:r.·o·wet:L is obtained from thEt committee, the follc,wbtq dlocn.nue.nt::s a:r.·e 1l:u:> be submitted in triplicate. The commit-bee shall c:ond:t:act~ t.he final review during its reqular monthly me1e~tinq and ·will :n:-es.porui within ten ( 10) working days after the review, pt·ovid·ead that. the final plans are i'llt accordance with the requiz·ement.s IO'tltli.Jnec:t below. Final plans shall irtclucle: . (1) An apprc•ximate time sob.ed.ule jlncit.i.catting s·tat:·ti.ng and completion dates of the Dt~relli:ng, utJLli ties ltl.o,:.k·-,up a.nd. completion of la.ndsca:.;•ing work. (2) Site platn, at a scatle oj~ l!Jt==:JLO' ,. shc•wingr :b'Lll.i.J.dinl!:l' parkinq, location, utility includingr cc:,nnect.aocessoz·y i.ons and gradinq improvelllhents, plan, d:i:n.rl·•~r·eway r.::.luding· 1 existing and proposed topography at (mnt.o11.1r intervals of ::a f•e~~t. with a base datum of sea level over tlle total I,ot and •e::~ct~!tJnu~l·:~d 1.00 feet outside the Lot on all sides .. Jr (3) An engri.neered founda·tion plan by a licer,used. ) Colorado structural etngineer adldressing tltu~ soil CO:L'l•1iU~io1r~s determined by· the S\JLbsurface sclil investJLqa1~icm subllllli t·t.r~f.:l aus a part of the Preliminary Sub»dttal. (4) Roof pla111 and floor plann at no smaller tha:l1 :1.;4n =::: l.'- o•u. (5) Samples of all exterior materials and colo:re;, and window and glass specifications, a·l: a minimum size of UP' fc)y 24 11 • (6) Exterior:; elevations with both exilsti:nq a:ndl Ji?:ll~~:>:t:•o:s•~d grades shown at a mir.d.mu:m scale of l./-4" •= JL' -~ 0'0 • (7) Wall section and details of fireplace c.hi:m:ney and exterior stairs and decks. ( 8) Landscape intent plan, inchu:Unq areas ·lt:C'J be irriqated with full description of plant. 1 and lan11is~~::;ehping materials at a. minitn\llm scale of l.'1 == :JLO". ( 9) c:ross-sE~c:~tion of structure indicat:.inq e:H:iert1Ll:'19f a!tM:L proposed grade line c•n the site and r;ho,winq ~rrad.e elev1a·t.tons •=>:f street, main floor and top of roof. 18 )' (10} Construction shall not cc:>:mmenoe until all. of 'the above requirements are satisfied. (11) Qualifications of ContJcactc:llr. The ComJGli:tt.GMi!l shall have the absolute discretion to approve OJ:=' disa:pp:r:·ciV\E!l t~hili! owner's use of a particular contractor i:tnd shall have tbe~ r.:i.qb:t to reject the OWner's plans if the Committee does not~ approv•e of the Contractor selected by owner. Note: Additional changes after completion submitted to ·the Committee chanqes and/or additions .. construction to a Dwelli119r andfor of an approved st.ructu1~e lDlttst be for approval Jprlor to ini·ti;s.tlr.k9' stach F. Besub:mittal of Plans. In the cevent of any disSL};~pr•O"'.ral of either a preliminary or a final submission, any resu:bmissic·n of plans will follow the same procedure as an c~x·igirhal submittal. In the cevent a decisio11. is felt t.o be jlmprc•per, .a request for a special hearing o:e the AssociatjLon llhay b·e. sulbmitted in •writing to the Co:mmittee within seven· days~ of i;.he date of notification of the decision.. This request shall . .be se:'t: forth in writing and shall contain the reasons wby 1~he cilE~oisic•n is felt to be improper and any other explartatory docUJnelnrt~e~ which would be helpful to the Committee in reviewing 1ch<e~ si.tt:tatir.>l:1 .• Tbe Committee ·will se·t the special b.e.al:-.ing dat.e c>r shall. :t'EU'ldler its decision based on the documentation in its sole disc~r·E!Jtir.m .• The decision ·of the Association at the special meje·t:tr.MJ o•r subsequent to reviewin·q this ma·terial, if no :spe<e:;LaJL JneE~t:.:i..nq . :im1 . deemed appropriate, sha11 be final. Alrny sulbmi·ttaJL fe.E~t:~ t·o be established by the Committee may be clb.arged for the fc>z~eqoil'll9 pJ:-ocedure. ;Ngn-Disg;y.a;tifiga·tion. The fact. ·that a llttem'bE~r c~jE' t.l"l.e Architectural Control Conunittee m.ay have a matter pe:nd.:in.gr be:fc>lr:"e tbe Architectural control committee Jln wh:i.ch he has a1 JPE~c:~1'.lJ.nll:1•Jt:Y. or. professional interest shall not disqualify s11.1.ch ltn4ial1Itblli~:t:." :Erc•:m voting on such matter. MT:ICLJL .!. ll po·venant for bs~a@mentia Section 1. General. The Assot~Jlat.iorl sb;iil.ll hatvlet ·t:hEn pl::.r,~re::JI:- t.o levy Assessments against. the Loit.s., arad the ()w.ru!l:t:~:at ·t~bE~.t·~~•:>:f· .v and each owner, and, if more thaltl: <Jllne ( 1} :J>erson, 4lkJ •. l :e;uc:h. persons, jointly and severally, by acceptanc•e of the CllE~~e:cil to a Lot, whether or not it shall be expressed in any S1Lltcb deed: 1• shall be deemed to covenant and agree ·to pay all J!!IU4::th. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 8, 2016 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA160025 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 414 E. Pitkin St Petitioner/Owner: Mark and Angel Hoffman Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(5) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow an accessory building to have an additional 300 square feet of floor area, the maximum square footage allowed is 600 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an accessory building an additional 300 square feet above the maximum 600 square feet allowed. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is part of the CRAFT RESUB subdivision that was approved by the City approximately in 1890. The original building was built approximately a short time later around 1908. The current zone district is Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M). Within the N-C-M the allowable floor area for this lot is 2364.5 square feet. From this total allowable floor area, 900.5 square feet is allowed on the rear half of the lot. Additionally, accessory buildings with habitable space are limited to 600 square feet in size and foot-print. This zone district does not limit the number accessory buildings that can be built on the property. The primary building on the lot is approximate 768 square feet in size. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval to allow an additional 300 square footage of floor area to the maximum 600 square footage allowed and finds: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The additional 300 square feet does not exceed the total allowed floor area for the lot or the allowed floor area allowed in the rear half. • The proposed building meets the allowed building height and setbacks. • If the ceiling height was adjusted to less than 7.5 feet, then a variance would not be required. The proposed ceiling height is 8 feet. • Additional buildings could be built, increasing the building lot coverage. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Further, the variance request as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a proposal which complies with standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA160025. 8/8/2016 To Whom It May Concern, We are requesting a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the address of 414 E. Pitkin St. The house we moved into this month is 860 sq. ft. with 2 small bedrooms. The house has no basement or garage. We are going to build a garage and due to the limited square footage of the house we would like to add a guest bedroom above the garage. By code we are limited to 300 sq. ft. above the garage. We are requesting to add a slightly larger space above the garage rather than build onto the house or add another structure in the yard, both of which we would be able to do by code, but we would lose the integrity and function of our yard. We feel the proposed plan has the least impact to our lot as a whole, and allows us to enjoy a landscaped yard that is not full of out buildings. Additionally, this is congruent with other yards and structures near us, many of which have garages with habitable space above. Thank you for your consideration to our request. Sincerely, Mark and Angel Hoffman FLOOR TO RAFTER HT. 12 8 12 3 GRADE TO EVE HT. GRADE TO RIDGE HT. 10'-0" 15'-5" 20'-0" 8'-0" GRADE TO EVE HT. FLOOR TO RAFTER HT. 8'-6" SECTION A-A' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" UPPER WALL STEPS BACK 6" UP 25'-0" 24'-0" 2-CAR GARAGE (2) 9'X7' OVERHEAD DOORS FLOOR PLAN - GROUND LEVEL SECTION A-A' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" DOWN FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 25'-0" 24'-0" SECTION A-A' DECK 2.0 BUILDING FLOORPLANS & SECTION NORTH 414 E. PITKIN STREET FORT COLLINS, CO. AUGUST 9, 2016 Mark and Angel Hoffman 414 E. Pitkin Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 PH: 970-222-3746 CONTACT/ OWNER: DATE: DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO: SCALE: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FORT COLLINS, CO PREPARED FOR: NORTH 3/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 3.0 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 414 E. PITKIN STREET FORT COLLINS, CO. AUGUST 9, 2016 Mark and Angel Hoffman 414 E. Pitkin Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 PH: 970-222-3746 CONTACT/ OWNER: DATE: DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO: SCALE: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FORT COLLINS, CO PREPARED FOR: 3/16" = 1'-0" PROPOSED EXISTING HOUSE GARAGE 600 SF. Property Line - 40'-0" Property Line - 140'-0" PITKIN STREET Sidewalk 5600 SF LOT TOTAL 6'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" Concrete Apron Alley 414 E. PITKIN STREET FORT COLLINS, CO. AUGUST 9, 2016 Mark and Angel Hoffman 414 E. Pitkin Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 PH: 970-222-3746 CONTACT/ OWNER: DATE: DRAWING TITLE: SHEET NO: SCALE: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FORT COLLINS, CO PREPARED FOR: 1.0 SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" NORTH Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 8, 2016 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA160027 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 899 Riverside Avenue Petitioner: DaVinci Sign Systems Owner: D and N Houska Family, LLC Zoning District: C-L (Limited Commercial) Code Section: 3.8.7(G)(6) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a second ground sign to be installed along Riverside Avenue. The maximum number of ground signs allowed along a street frontage is one sign. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to all allow a second ground sign to be installed along Riverside Avenue. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The Houska automotive business has operated for years out of one building. This business has recently expanded and now has approximately 900 linear feet of frontage along Riverside Ave. This expansion has increased the number of access drives from Riverside Avenue. These access points are shared by the multiple buildings that are a part of Houska’s automotive campus. A development is limited to one ground sign per its frontage. Houska has three frontages, Lesser Drive, E Myrtle Street and Riverside Ave. The ability to place a ground sign along the two other frontages is restrictive due to safety issues, particularly decreasing the visibility at the intersections and driveways. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval to allow a second ground sign along Riverside Ave and finds: • The variance request will not be detrimental to the public good. • The proposed distance between the two ground signs is 520 linear feet. • The ability to move one ground sign to another street frontage is limited due to the safety concerning traffic and pedestrian visibility at the intersection and driveways. • The additional sign does not exceed the total sign allowance for the development. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL #ZBA160027.