The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/08/2018 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingHeidi Shuff, Chair Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long Cody Snowdon Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Ken Summers 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 8, 2018 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180040 Address: 4985 Hogan Drive Owner: Elise Simon and RJ Blume Petitioner: Jeffrey Gaines, HighCraft Builders Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This variance request is for a new accessory building to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 feet side-yard setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA180041 Address: 2243 Hiawatha Court Owner/Petitioner: Thomas and DeAnne Redder Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This variance request is to build a tempered glass pool enclosure which exceeds the maximum allowed area of an accessory building for this parcel in the R-L zone district. The 1495 square foot structure would exceed the 800 square feet limit by 695 square feet ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 November 8, 2018 3. APPEAL ZBA180042 Address: 728 Cherry Street Owner/Petitioner: Kirk Longstein Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: This variance request is for a 556 square foot 1-story addition to the rear of the home to encroach 6 feet into the 15 feet required rear yard setback. 4. APPEAL ZBA180043 Address: 638 Smith Street Owner/Petitioner: Brian and Shelley Tracy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6) Project Description: The variance request is to build a new detached garage with a carport. The proposed building is 826.7 square feet (600 square feet of garage and 226.7 square feet of carport). The maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building is 600 square feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 8, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA180040 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4985 Hogan Drive Petitioner/Owner: Elise Simon and RJ Blume Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Variance Request: This variance request is for a new accessory building to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 feet side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was platted in 1965 under the County jurisdiction. The primary structure was later built in 2001. The City annexed the neighborhood in 2007 and zoned the property Urban Estate (U-E). The U-E zone district requires a minimum of a half-acre for single family lots. With a larger minimum acre, the U-E also has larger setbacks. Most of the subdivision was developed and built while it was in the County jurisdiction. Many of the primary structures including this property do not meet the 20 foot side-yard setback. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The lot is 196 feet in length and the encroachment is for 20 feet of the length. • Only the corner of the accessory structure is at a 5 foot setback. • Other buildings in the immediate neighborhood do not meet the 20 foot side-yard setback. 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. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA180040. Explanation for Variance Request for 4985 Hogan Drive This variance request would allow a small, detached screen porch to be built within the 20’ side setback of the U-E district, seeking a reduction to 5’. Justification Criteria 3 - Proposal will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood: When this neighborhood was annexed into the City of Fort Collins, it was assigned to the U-E district. However, lots along Hogan Drive and its side streets are at the low end of the half-acre minimum size limit of the U-E district. The neighborhood is akin to an R-L neighborhood with houses lined up along the street, defined side yards, and fenced back yards. Therefore, requiring a small outbuilding like the one being proposed to be set back 20’ from the side fence- line feels odd – more like putting it in the middle of the backyard given the size of this lot than towards the edge of a large, open lot as is more common in the U-E district. In the case of this property specifically, the owners would like to set the structure to the south side of their existing lawn, in an unobtrusive location nestled under a cluster of trees along the south fence- line. The proposed structure will have 7’-6” eaves and a 13’-6” ridge, and, as described, be an open screened area. It will have both a low profile from the street and neighboring houses, and a good deal of openness. And, the cluster of trees toward the south of the lot that it will sit under will provide additional screening from the street. The Fairway Estates Property Owner’s Association, along with both neighbors to the north and south are in support of the project and location of the structure. REQ'D SIDE S.B. 20' 6' 20' REQ'D REAR SETBACK 25' 5' REQ'D FRONT SETBACK 30' 4985 HOGAN DRIVE (E) TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (N) DETACHED SCREEN PORCH PL (E) HOUSE TO P.L. 23'± (N) PORCH TO P.L. 5'± 6' 20' REQ'D REAR SETBACK 25' UTILITY + BRIDAL PATH EASEMENT DITCH EASEMENT 5' EASEMENT REQ'D SIDE S.B. AREA OF (N) 20' HOUSE ADDITION (N) ADDITION TO P.L. 104'± (N) ADDITION TO P.L. 32'± (E) SHED TO P.L. 6'± (E) SHED TO P.L. 49'± (E) WOOD SHED 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN 4985 HOGAN DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 | DET. SCREENED PORCH | VARIANCE REQ. T/GRADE -2' - 8" 13'-3" B.O. EAVE 7'-7" RIDGE HT. 13'-3" SCREENS, TYP T/GRADE -2' - 8" 15'-3" T/GRADE -2' - 8" T/GRADE -2' - 8" 1/4" = 1'-0" RETREAT EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" RETREAT SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" RETREAT WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" RETREAT NORTH ELEVATION 4985 HOGAN DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 | DETACHED SCREENED PORCH | VARIANCE REQUEST Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 8, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA180041 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2243 Hiawatha Court Petitioner/Owner: Thomas and DeAnne Redder Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Variance Request: This variance request is to build a tempered glass pool enclosure which exceeds the maximum allowed area of an accessory building for this parcel in the R-L zone district. The 1,495 square foot structure would exceed the 800 square feet limit by 695 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annexed into the City in 1969 and later platted in 1975. The primary building on the property was built in 1977. The property is Zoned Low Density Residential (R-L). The lot size is 9,768 square feet and the primary building is approximately 1,648 square feet. Accessory buildings are limited in size because they are to be accessory or subordinate to the primary structure. The number of accessory buildings on a property is not limited. However, the total allowable floor area is limited to one-third the lot size. Within the neighborhood, the primary structures are both single story and two story. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The accessory building does not exceed the total allowable floor area for the lot. • The primary building is 2 stories and the proposed accessory building is 12 feet in height. • The proposed accessory building is largely transparent. 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. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA180041. ZBA180041 - 2243 Hiawatha Court Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 8, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA180042 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 728 Cherry Street Petitioner/Owner: Kirk Longstein Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Variance Request: This variance request is for a 556 square foot 1-story addition to the rear of the home to encroach 6 feet into the 15 feet required rear yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was platted in approximately 1881 and the original primary structure was built in 1904. It is unclear how changes have occurred over the years. The property is a corner lot. Currently it is addressed from Cherry Street and the front door faces Cherry Street. Since the property line along Cherry Street is considered the front, the north property line is the rear property line. The property line along Grant is considered a side property line. The abutting property to the north fronts onto Grant Street. This makes the setback from the shared property line different. The subject property has a rear setback and the abutting north property has a side setback. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The abutting property has a 5 foot setback from the shared property line. • The proposed addition is setback 9 feet, which is four additional feet than the setback of the abutting property. • The length of the proposed encroachment is15 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. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA180042. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 8, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA180043 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 638 Smith Street Petitioner/Owner: Brian and Shelley Tracy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6) Variance Request: The variance request is to build a new detached garage with a carport. The proposed building is 826.7 square feet (600 square feet of garage and 226.7 square feet of carport). The maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building is 600 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was platted with the Fort Collins town plat in 1873 and the primary structure was originally built in 1900. The existing accessory building will be removed has part of this proposal. This year a code change occurred that made the proposed design out of compliance. This code was to include the footprint of a carport as part of the allowable floor area. Therefore, the proposed design with a 600 square foot garage and with an attached 226 square foot carport exceeds the maximum 600 square foot for an accessory building. Prior to the code other accessory buildings in the immediate neighborhood have been permitted with similar square footage. Additionally, there are other accessory buildings along the alley that exceed 600 square foot. The code does not limit the number of accessory buildings. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The proposed accessory building does not exceed the allowable for the overall property and rear- half. • The structure is one story and the porch/carport portion is open on three sides. • Along the alley there are existing accessory structures similar in size and design. 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. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA180043 1 Variance Request – 638 Smith St. Fort Collins, CO. Brian and Shelley Tracy 638 Smith St. Fort Collins, CO. 80524 October 29, 2018 To whom it may concern, The purpose of this letter is to provide details for the variance request for 638 Smith St. and provide justification that the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except for in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. The Homeowners We are the homeowners at 638 Smith St., where we are proposing a new garage with a multi-use porch/carport. We are long time Fort Collins residents who recently downsized to this house. We are not flipping this house for real estate profit. We are not landlords trying to maximize renters per lot. We fully intend to grow old in this house. One of us is a third generation native Coloradoan whose grandfather was amongst the original Fort Collins German sugar beet worker families in the early 1900’s. This background doesn’t enter directly into decisions on land-use variances, but it is important to us that the board understands our full and rich appreciation of the history of Fort Collins and the physical features of old town that make it a special and unique place. These features are prominent among the reasons we moved to old town from south Fort Collins, thus we have a vested interest in contributing to the maintenance of these qualities. The Context In April 2018 when we were deciding whether to buy this house, we walked the neighborhood and the alleys in the surrounding area to see the types of property modifications that have been done over the years. At the time we suspected that the currently existing dilapidated storage shed at 638 Smith St. would not suffice for storage. There was certainly no protected off-street parking. We therefore knew that we would build some sort of garage after purchase. At the time of that April 2018 exploration phase, we examined the existing code and saw nothing in the code that would prevent us from building a structure like we are proposing. Furthermore, we talked with the folks three doors north who had a 5 yr-old garage exactly like the one we are proposing. Additionally, we noted at the time of our buying decision in April 2018 that the code specifically included roofed porches closed on two or more sides (but not open porches) in the calculation of floor area. There was no mention of carports in the April 2018 code. We went under contract for the house in late April 2018. We closed on the house on June 12, 2018, only several days after a change in the code was passed that included carports in the calculation of allowable floor area as a percentage of the lot. It was a busy time – we did not know about the code change that occurred between our contract and closing. We now understand from city staff that the intent of this change to include “carports” was to reduce massing of accessory buildings. The Proposed Structure We are proposing a two-car garage with a reasonable space in front of the cars for a work area and tool storage. The walled-in portion is 20 feet wide and 30 feet deep. To the south side we are proposing a multi-use porch to be used as a protected outdoor work area (potting, woodwork, bicycle maintenance), sitting area, social gathering area, shaded outside play area for future grandkids, walkway, and occasionally as a carport when needed. There is no other shaded outdoor area in the backyard. For example, we may need to park our son’s car there when he deploys overseas in his service with the United States Marine Corps. 2 The porch/carport portion of the building will be supported by attractive wooden posts and will be completely open on three sides. As with our neighbor’s similar garage, the trusses are proposed to span across the full width of the garage and porch, in order to maximize overall structural integrity and attic storage space. The downward sloping roof angles will face north and south in order to optimize views for north and south neighbors and maximize the uninterrupted south facing surface area for future installation of solar panels. In fact, the south roof pitch will receive plentiful sun due to the tree configuration in that direction. The porch will not extend the entire depth of the garage east-to-west, therefore the overall structure will be purposefully broken up and not just be a “box”, which reduces mass appearance. We will sacrifice two feet of our yard in order to set back from the alley two feet more than the code requires. The setbacks to adjacent properties will be six feet to the north side and nine feet to the south side, which further mitigates any negative effects on neighbors. We plan to bring elements of the design of the house into the aesthetic of the garage so that the property will tie together. We are well within the maximum allowable floor area for the lot and there is no overcrowding effect on the lot, especially compared with other very recently constructed houses and accessory buildings in the immediate vicinity. Note: part of this overall project is to remove the existing structure. To pay the respect due to the history of the existing shed/garage, during demolition we went to great lengths to repurpose/recycle substantial portions of the materials. We recycled 3,000 pounds of concrete from the foundation. At significant time and labor expense, we have carefully disassembled the rest of the shed/garage building. We saved for repurposing all of the tongue-and-groove pine siding, all of the rough-hewn pine wall studs, ceiling joists, and roof joists, and a significant amount of the old and weathered but still valuable wooden sheathing material. With difficulty, we are also repurposing a significant section of the shingled roof. We are not just mindlessly scraping away the old history to the landfill, rather it will be mindfully incorporated into the aesthetic of the new structure and into our home. Summary: the variance is simply to have the trusses span the entire width of the structure and not just the enclosed walled portion of the garage. Roofed porches, open on three sides, are allowed in the code and do not count toward floor area. We are not wedded to the idea of this as a carport, per se. Our plan is to use this mostly as a multi-use porch and perhaps sometimes as a carport. However, whether used as a porch or as a “carport”, it will always be open on three sides and will be perfectly transparent. The difference here is that the trusses will span over the entire structure as with the neighbor’s garage three doors north. Mitigating Factors 1. The immediate neighbors are in favor of this design. Several have provided written feedback to Noah Beals. 2. The proposed design is exactly like the existing 5 yr-old design three houses to the north, and is not dissimilar to the height and mass of numerous other accessory buildings in the neighboring alleys. There are a number of garages or other accessory buildings that are significantly taller than our proposed garage. There are even four car garages in the immediate vicinity. We would argue that this design does not detract from the good of the neighborhood and that the variance from code is minimal and inconsequential. 3. This garage will allow us to get cars off the street into a safe, protected structure, while still having a modestly sized covered open area for multiple uses. This will be important if/when the neighborhood parking permit program arrives on the 600 block of Smith St. 4. The porch will be supported with attractive wooden posts and will be open on three sides, reducing the massing effect by being transparent from most directions. The proposed rear set-back is two feet further in than necessary from the alley, reducing massing view or any potential looming effect on the alley. 3 5. Because of the length of the lot, there is still substantial distance between the back of our house and neighbor’s houses and the proposed garage, which serves to mitigate the concern about the effect of crowding/massing on the lot or any potential for a “looming” effect on the neighbors. 6. Roof angles are oriented so that the angles lead away from the neighbors, which mitigates the mass of view. 7. The porch/carport does not extend the full depth of the garage, reducing the massing effect and blockiness of the design. 8. The uninterrupted southern roof (as opposed to one pitch for the garage and another for the porch) will be optimal for future solar/photovoltaic panel installation. When the electrical service is installed to this garage, we are planning to include an additional cable to bring the planned solar power into the main house. Solar is in our medium term plans and the garage would be much more exposed for solar panels than the house. We thank you kindly for consideration of this proposal. Brian and Shelley Tracy 638 Smith St. Fort Collins, CO. 80524 From: Joe Voss <joe.voss@brinkmanconstruction.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:21 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 638 Smith Street - Variance Good morning, Noah. My family lives at 634 Smith Street, which is the house just north of Brian and Shelley Tracy’s home (638 Smith Street). We would like to communicate our support and approval in regards to their proposed detached garage. The variance they are requesting would have absolutely no negative impact on us or on the neighborhood as a whole. We are aware of what the final structure would look like as there are multiple garage structures to the North of us that this property will look similar to. Sincerely, Joe Voss, Assistant Project Manager joe.voss@brinkmanconstruction.com PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS & WEBSITE 3528 Precision Drive | Suite 100 | Fort Collins, CO 80528 C 970.420.0612 O 970.267.0954 BrinkmanConstruction.com From: Melissa Pattison <melissapattison@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 9:14 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Variance Request for 638 Smith St Mr. Beals, I am writing to you regarding a variance request made by Shelley and Brian Tracy at 638 Smith St, since I am unable to attend the hearing on November 6th. I own the house next door to the south, 642 Smith St. The Tracy’s have shared their plans to build the new garage with an open porch/carport on one end. I understand the variance they are requesting and see no issues with it. The plans are consistent with other buildings already in the alley and will not be out of place. I have owned my home for 18 years and have seen many changes to the houses in the neighborhood. Most, though not all, have been positive. It's both the privilege and price of living in this eclectic, vibrant part of town. The Tracy's plans fall on the positive end of that spectrum. Thanks, Melissa Pattison P.S. Could you please forward if I have identified the incorrect person? From: Marv Barstow <marvb@colorado-land.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 9:16 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: appeal # ZBA180043 638 Smith Street Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals We live at 625 Smith Street in Fort Collins. We are in support of this application for a detached garage with a carport as described to be located in the alley behind 638 Smith Street. It will reduce the need for parking on Smith Street and create functional parking in a neat and orderly way in the alley. It fits with the character of neighborhood and we believe is a benefit to the all.. We would encourage you to approve the application. Marv and Yvonne Barstow 625 Smith Street Ft. Collins, CO. 80524 From: Seth Jansen <jansens@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 8:12 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Input Regarding Appeal #: ZBA180043 Dear Mr. Beals: I'd like to provide input on the Appeal petitioned for by my neighbors, Brian and Shelley Tracy of 638 Smith Street (Appeal #: ZBA180043). I do not believe that their carport at 226.7 square feet, which puts them in excess of the allowed 600 square feet of floor space for an accessory building, will result in any detriment to the public good or cause a consequential impact on the context or character of the neighborhood. In part, I think the nature of the carport as unenclosed space means it has little effect on the overall feel of the garage structure. As evidence of my impression on this, I'd point to a number of other garages on the same alley that are similar to what the Tracey's are proposing: 1. our own garage, 624 Smith Street, 600 square foot floor area + ~200 square foot carport 2. 620 Smith, same 600 square foot floor area + ~200 square foot carport 3. 616 Smith, this one is larger with what appears to be about 1,000 square foot enclosed space 4. 625 Stover, only 600 square foot but feels more massive because it is tall Based on these examples, I think the Tracey's request is reasonable and will not be out of context with other garages on this alley. Thanks for your consideration, Seth Jansen and Maria Elena Price 624 Smith Street From: Sarah Wilder <skfwilder@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 8:18 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Proposed garage at 638 Smith St. Dear Mr. Beals, My name is Sarah Wilder and I am the homeowner at 629 Smith St. in Fort Collins. This email is to express support for the proposed garage at my neighbors' home at 638 Smith St. The Tracy home is across the street and two doors down from mine, so I have a very clear view of their property from my home. Brian and Shelly Tracy have shown me the garage plans and I have no objection to it at all. This is a very nice Old Town street, and I have no concerns that the proposed structure would detract from the good of the neighborhood. In fact, it is quite similar to other structures found on the street- most noticeably at another home that I can see from my own; I believe it is the exact same design as this one. Again, as a neighbor with an interest in preserving the integrity of this great section of town, I have no concerns and I encourage you to approve these plans. Thanks so much, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cheers, Sarah Wilder 503-953-2053