The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/08/2017 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingHeidi Shuff, Chair Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Robert Long Cody Snowdon 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 JUNE 8, 2017 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 ZBA170012 Address: 307 Starboard Court Petitioner/Owner: Brian Berry Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1), 4.4(D)(2)(c), 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: The variance request is to build a 192 square foot accessory building (shed) in the rear yard. This request requires the following three variances: 1) an increase of an additional 109 square feet to the allowable floor area for the lot, 2) 9 foot encroachment into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback, and 3) 1 foot encroachment into the required 5 feet side-yard setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA170013 Address: 111 Chestnut Street Petitioner: Cole Evans Owner: Walnut Street 354 LLC Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7(I) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a sign to orient vertically with a height of 25.42 feet tall; the maximum height allowed is 7 feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 8, 2017 3. APPEAL ZBA170014 Address: 845 Southridge Greens Blvd. Petitioner/Owner: Karl E, Kliewer, M.D. Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance request is for a pergola to encroach 9 feet into the required 15 feet rear yard setback. 4. APPEAL ZBA170015 Address: 415 Mason Ct, 6A Petitioner: Dennis Sovick, Contractor Owner: Pat and Vicki Phillips Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) Project Description: The variance request is to allow an addition to a garage to encroach 1 foot into the required 5 foot side setback on the 1-story portion of the structure. Additionally, the request is to allow the second story portion of the addition to encroach 2.5 feet into the required 5 foot side setback. 5. APPEAL ZBA170016 Address: 132 LaPorte Avenue Petitioner: DaVinci Sign Systems Owner: LaPorte Venue of Bohemian Foundation Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7(H)(2), 3.8.7(I) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a new projecting sign to be installed at a height of 12 feet; the maximum height allowed is 7 feet. Additionally, the variance request is to allow the projection sign at 17.5 square feet of sign area per face; the maximum is 15 square feet of sign area per face. 6. APPEAL ZBA170017 Address: 429 S. Whitcomb Street Petitioners: Laura and Conor Flanagan Owner: 429 S. Whitcomb LLC Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1), 3.8.11(C)(2), 3.8.11(C)(3), 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: The variance request is to allow an 8 feet tall fence to be placed in the front yard; maximum height allowed is 4 feet, and then extend the 8 feet tall fence into the side yard where the maximum height allowed is 6 feet. Additionally, the fence would encroach 15 feet into the required 15 feet front yard setback and 15 feet into the required 15 feet corner side-yard setback. 7. APPEAL ZBA170018 Address: 925 Bungalow Court Petitioner: Dick Anderson Owners: Hagen and Susan Finley Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: The variance request is to increase the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot. The increase is for an additional 188 square feet; existing is 668 square feet, and the allowable floor area is 571 square feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 307 Starboard Ct. Petitioner/Owner: Brian Berry Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1), 4.4(D)(2)(c), 4.4(D)(2)(d) Variance Request: The variance request is to build a 192 square foot accessory building (shed) in the rear yard. This request requires the following three variances: 1) an increase of an additional 109 square feet to the allowable floor area for the lot 2) 9 foot encroachment into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback and, 3) 1 foot encroachment into the required 5 feet side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is located in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district. The required rear-yard setback for a structure is 15 feet and the required side-yard setback is 5 feet. This property is located in the Landings subdivision. The Landings subdivision approved a 5 foot encroachment into the required 15 ft rear-yard setback. It also extended select side setbacks to 10 feet. Both the side yard and the rear yard abut Tract A of Landings Subdivision. This tract is reserved as a utilities and drainage easement. Additionally, the required setbacks of the Landings subdivision are recorded on the plat. With the variance the property will need to be replatted. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the three variance request with the condition that the property be replatted to remove the setback requirements from the plat and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The building floor area is 192 square feet and is 10 feet in height. • The property lines abut a tract of land that is reserved in an easement increasing the distance to another buildable property. 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA170012. From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: Appeal # ZBA170012 Date: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:36:52 PM From: Darrell G. Fontane [mailto:fontane@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:36 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: Appeal # ZBA170012 Thank you for contacting me about Appeal # ZBA170012 for 307 Starboard Court by Brian Berry. I am Brian's next door neighbor and he will bring a letter from me supporting his request to the hearing. I wish to confirm by this email that I fully support Brian's request. I have reviewed the plans for the shed in the rear yard and I think this will be a nice addition to his property. Please let me know if I can provide any additional supporting information. Darrell Fontane Darrell G. Fontane 313 Starboard Court Fort Collins, CO 80525-3137 (970) 430-5773 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 111 Chestnut St. Petitioner: Cole Evans Petitioner/Owner: Walnut Street 354 LLC Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7(I) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a sign to orient vertically with a height of 25.42 feet tall; the maximum height allowed is 7 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code contains numerous regulations for the size, height and location of signs. One reason these regulations are in place is to prevent buildings and street-fronts from becoming overwhelmed with signage. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The standard only addresses the vertical dimension of the sign and does not include a maximum horizontal dimension. Therefore, the same sign could be installed with the long end as the horizontal measurement with the same square footage. • The architecture feature the sign is placed on is approximately 1000 square feet and the sign is approximately 50 square feet. The sign is therefore approximately 5% of the total face of the architectural feature. 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA170013. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV City code does not allow for signs to be taller than 7' in height however when looking at the architecture of the building we feel a vertical sign is equal to or better than a horizontal sign that is 7' tall. It fits with the scale of the architecture and is nominal and inconsequential to the public. I have attached 2 renderings that show both scenarios for reference. Also note: this sign will be painted (or thin cut metal lettering) that will not protrude from the building more than a couple inches. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Marcus Glasgow, Zoning Inspector PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 845 Southridge Greens Blvd. Petitioner/Owner: Karl E Kliewer, M.D. Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This request is to allow for a 256 square foot pergola to encroach 9 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The Property is in the Low Density Residential Zone District (R-L). The rear yard setback for structures in the R-L is 15 feet. A structure is required to meet the setback standards when it requires a building permit. A building permit is required for a pergola that is over 8 feet in height and/or over 120 square foot. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of a pergola to encroach 9 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The structure is not enclosed. • The form of the pergola is similar to the form of the playground equipment that previously existed in the same location. The playground equipment did not require a building permit. 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA170014. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 415 Mason Ct, 6A. Petitioner: Dennis Sovick, Contractor Owners: Pat and Vicki Phillips Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow an addition to a garage to encroach 1 foot into the required 5 foot side setback on the 1-story portion of the structure. Additionally, the request is to allow the second story portion of the addition to encroach 2.5 feet into the required 5 foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is part of the Martinez PUD. At the time of the approval of this PUD, it was uncertain how these lots would develop as both a single family house and a duplex were approved to be built. The two properties directly west of this lot were granted variances to build two garages with dwelling units attached to each other at the shared property line. At the time of these variances it was noted that the lots of this subdivision were narrow and limited in space. The existing garage is side loaded. It is accessed through a shared drive approach with the west abutting lot. There is a single story garage that meets the 5ft side-yard setback on the abutting lot that shares the east property line 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • Other accessory buildings in the Martinez PUD are built closer to side property line than the 1 foot and 2.5 foot encroachment being requested. • The structure directly east of the proposed encroachment is a 1-story garage that does not have habitable space. 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA1700015. A1 EXISTING 50.01' 35'-0" 15'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-0" 6'-0" 126.76' 129.74 50.00' 10" 16'-0" 20' x 20' Garage 28'-0" 6'-0" Porch 4r 2r Iron Fence SITE PLAN 415 #6 Mason Ct Scale: 1"=10' 5'-0" DECK EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE 15'-0" 9'-8" 7'-0" 5'-0" 126.76' 129.74 50.00' 50.01' 4r Iron Fence PORCH 1r 2'-6" 23'-0" 1'-6" ELEVATOR 20'-0" 5'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION property line NEW DECK 3'-6" 3'-6" 5'-0" 25'-0" 16'-6" 3'-6" 8 R 1 R 7 R 1 R 8 R Garage slab to main floor:58 .5" EXISTING HOME 2'-6" REQUEST FOR SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 5'-0" to 2'6" 20'-6" SITE PLAN 415 #6 Mason Ct ADDITION ABOVE GARAGE A2 Upper level Addition VARIANCE REQUEST Scale: 1"=10' 15'-0" 9'-8" 7'-0" 5'-0" 126.76' 129.74 50.00' 50.01' 4r Iron Fence PORCH 1r 20'-0" 5'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION property line NEW DECK 25'-0" 16'-6" 8 R Garage slab to main floor:58 .5" EXISTING HOME REQUEST FOR SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 5'-0" to 4'-0" 23'-0" on LOWER LEVEL SITE PLAN 415 #6 Mason Ct 1'-6" 2'-6" 23'-0" ELEVATOR 20'-0" 1 R 8 R Storage room below stairway or open wall GARAGE 23' x 20' REPLACES EXISTING 20'x20' GARAGE wall line above wall line above 1'-0" 1'-6" 2'-6" 4'-0" A3 Lower Level Garage VARIANCE REQUEST Scale: 1"=10' June 6,2017 Noah Beals City Planner, City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO 80521 To Noah Beals, City Planner, The following members of the ten property owners that compose the MartinezParkHome Owner's Association support the request for the variance by Pat and Vicki Phillips at 415#6 Mason Court. Jerri Schmitz executive director of the Mathews house 415#l Mason Ct Lee Christian 415#2 Mason Ct Steve and Sheila Dielman 415#3 Mason Ct Ken and Suzanne Smith 415#4 Mason Ct Pat and Vicki Phillips 415#6 Mason Ct Dolores Williams 415#7 Mason Ct Jeff Dean and Karen Harder 41 5#8 Mason Ct Dennis and Mary Lib Sovick 415#9 Mason Ct Deborah Crawford 415#10 Mason Ct Sincerely, Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 132 LaPorte Ave. Petitioner: DaVinci Sign Systems Owners: LaPorte Venue of Bohemian Foundation Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7(H)(2), 3.8.7(I) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a new projecting sign to be installed at a height of 12 feet; the maximum height allowed is 7 feet. Additionally, the variance request is to allow the projection sign at 17.5 square feet of sign area per face; the maximum is 15 square feet of sign area per face. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property recently received a Minor Amendment approval that has allowed the building to change use of the property to a music venue and to increase the size of the building. The sign code contains numerous regulations for the size, height and location of signs. One reason these regulations are in place is to prevent buildings and street-fronts from becoming overwhelmed with signage. In the Downtown zone district there are many projecting wall signs. These signs vary in location from projecting over private property or public right-of-way. The requested sign is proposed to be projecting over private property. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The sign is entirely within the property and does not overhang the public right-of-way. • The standard only addresses the vertical dimension of the sign and does not include a maximum horizontal dimension. Therefore, the same sign could be installed with the long end as the horizontal measurement with the same square footage. • The size of the sign is relatively small in comparison the side of the building it is attached to. • There is airspace included in the sign making the 2.5ft increase less noticeable. 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA170016. Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 429 S. Whitcomb St. Petitioner: Laura and Conor Flanagan Owner: 429 S. Whitcomb LLC Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1), 3.8.11(C)(2), 3.8.11(C)(3), 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(E)(4) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow an 8 feet tall fence to be placed in the front yard; maximum height allowed is 4 feet, and then extend the 8 feet tall fence into the side yard where the maximum height allowed is 6 feet. Additionally, the fence would encroach 15 feet into the required 15 feet front yard setback and 15 feet into the required 15 feet corner side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The original house on this lot was built approximately 1910. It has been remodeled at different times and as recently as 2014. The property is a corner lot. The house faces S. Whitcomb Street and is addressed from this street. This makes the front yard the portion of the property that is east of the front facade extending to the property line. Additionally, the south yard is considered a side yard. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends to approve portions of Appeal ZBA170009 with regards to Land Use Code Section 3.8.11(C)(3) and 4.8(E)(4) to allow an 8-foot wall up to the front wall of the house and not further forward, and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The 2 foot increase is along an arterial street and not another residential property. • The wall is setback from the back of sidewalk at least 2 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. Further, Appeal ZBA170017 is to be denied with regards to Land Use Code Section 3.8.11(C)(1), 3.8.11(C)(2) and 4.8(E)(2) with the following findings: • The request would be detrimental to the public good. • There is no unique hardship demonstrated. • The request would not promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a complying proposal. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of portions of APPEAL # ZBA170017. From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: Appeal ZBA170017 Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:24:40 AM -----Original Message----- From: Richard Taranow [mailto:rtaranow@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:20 AM To: Noah Beals Subject: Appeal ZBA170017 The tall fence walling off a property does not fit character of old town neighborhood nor does expanding outside setback If other houses followed it would create a fortress of entire neighborhood Hope that council will rely on not diverging from current codes thank you rtaranow@comcast.net From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: 429 S. Whitcomb - 8 foot tall fence Date: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:02:35 AM -----Original Message----- From: meg [mailto:barefootmeg@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 9:29 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: 429 S. Whitcomb - 8 foot tall fence Hi Noah, I’m sorry I didn’t get this letter turned in earlier so that it could be included in the packet for the meeting on the 8th. I only just now saw this variance request in the most recent edition of the Development Review newsletter. To the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, The house at 429 Whitcomb street sits on the southeasternmost corner of the Loomis Addition and acts as a gateway not only to the Loomis Addition, but to the residential portion of Old Town West as a whole. I have tremendous concerns regarding the detrimental nature of the proposed 8 foot tall fence pushed up against the sidewalk on all sides — both in terms of neighborhood character and pedestrian comfort. One of the most consistent pieces of community feedback through the recent Old Town Neighborhoods Plan discussions was that people like the character of our older neighborhoods. There’s a sense of community and neighborliness that would be notably damaged if what were to greet people as they entered our neighborhood was an 8 foot tall wall. Likewise, as pedestrians walk along this section of Mulberry, already made a bit uncomfortable by people driving over the reduced speed limit for that curve in the road, the looming presence of a wall would only add to the discomfort of those walking by. I am sensitive to the needs of a young family to protect their children and their health and I have likewise read several studies regarding the negative effects of noise pollution. There are other ways to mitigate this problem that not only will be better for the neighborhood, but could potentially be better for the family as well (as trees and bushes are allowed to grow higher than 8 feet in Fort Collins and could therefore provide a substantial increase in noise reduction with the side benefit of providing cleaner air as well). The idea of putting an 8 foot fence in front of the house is utterly ridiculous. I believe I must have read that wrong. We live in the United States, not South America where all homes are behind walls. A four foot fence should be entirely sufficient. Anything more than that would significantly change the look and character of Whitcomb street on that block face. There is nothing nominal or inconsequential about this request. The fence will butt up against pedestrian activity in an aggressive way and will likewise reflect a discordant treatment of a residential property in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood. Please deny the variances being requested for this property for the sake of our neighborhood character and the comfort of pedestrian activity through this part of Old Town. Thank you, Meg Dunn 720 W. Oak Street From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: Appeal #ZBA170017 Date: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:04:12 AM -----Original Message----- From: Brian Sutter [mailto:bsutter2003@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 5:18 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: Appeal #ZBA170017 Mr.Beals, I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for June 8th. Conor and Laura Flanagan are excellent neighbors and I have told them in the past that I believe they should be allowed to do what they want to their yard. However, I have both aesthetic and safety concerns about what is described in the hearing notice. I fully understand the Flanagan’s attempts to mitigate the Mulberry Avenue noise and provide a safe environment to raise their daughter — I am certainly not against this. On the aesthetic side, an eight-foot concrete fence in the front yard is not in character with Old Town and should not be approved. My safety concern is on the five-way intersection of Canyon, Mulberry, and Whitcomb. The intersection is already a scene of many accidents. I believe an eight-foot structure in the front yard will significantly reduce the visibility from Whitcomb looking west at the intersection. A drawing of the proposed fence/wall would have certainly helped neighbors to judge any impact. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brian Sutter From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: Opposing 429 S. Whitcomb Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 4:01:45 PM From: Laura Hughes [mailto:lrhughes620@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 3:56 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: Opposing 429 S. Whitcomb We are opposing the variance for the fence on 429 S. Whitcomb st. Esthetically unpleasing! Nothing in our neighborhood remotely resembles this type of fence let alone in Old Town. Although we don't oppose fences, 8ft seems excessive. The intersection of Whitcomb and Mulberry is already compromised with the addition of Canyon Ave. We believe building a 8ft. fence would further hinder the visibility of pulling out onto Mulberry. We also frequently use the alley to the west of Whitcomb. As it is, it's a very busy street to navigate. We believe the proposed variance would hinder this further! A cement barrier-fence is overkill! This is Old Town, not I-25! This would look like a compound. Please consider keeping Old Towns charm and not building a barrier. Sincerely, Craig and Laura Hughes 620 West Mulberry APPEAL ZBA170017 Address: 429 S. Whitcomb Street Petitioners: Laura and Conor Flanagan Owner: 429 S. Whitcomb LLC Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1), 3.8.11(C)(2), 3.8.11(C)(3), 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: The variance request is to allow an 8 feet tall fence to be placed in the front yard; maximum height allowed is 4 feet, and then extend the 8 feet tall fence into the side yard where the maximum height allowed is 6 feet. Additionally, the fence would encroach 15 feet into the required 15 feet front yard setback and 15 feet into the required 15 feet corner side-yard setback. Sent from my iPhone From: Noah Beals To: Marcha Hill Subject: FW: APPEAL ZBA170017 Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 11:55:02 AM From: michael reilly [mailto:mjrkiwi@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 11:53 AM To: Noah Beals Subject: APPEAL ZBA170017 Hello, As adjacent property owners, we are opposed to this request to a variance in zoning. Not withstanding the eyesore this fence would be and the incongruity it would create in regards to the look of the rest of this Old Town West neighborhood, the more pressing issue regards safety vis-à-vis vehicular/pedestrian traffic and sight lines. APPEAL ZBA170017 Address: 429 S. Whitcomb Street Petitioners: Laura and Conor Flanagan Owner: 429 S. Whitcomb LLC Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1), 3.8.11(C)(2), 3.8.11(C)(3), 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: The variance request is to allow an 8 feet tall fence to be placed in the front yard; maximum height allowed is 4 feet, and then extend the 8 feet tall fence into the side yard where the maximum height allowed is 6 feet. Additionally, the fence would encroach 15 feet into the required 15 feet front yard setback and 15 feet into the required 15 feet corner side-yard setback. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Michael & Harmony Reilly Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 8, 2017 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA170018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 925 Bungalow Ct. Petitioner: Dick Anderson Owners: Hagen and Susan Finley Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Variance Request: The variance request is to increase the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot. The increase is for an additional 188 square feet; existing is 668 square feet, and the allowable floor area is 571 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is not the typical size in the N-C-L zone district. The minimize lot size in the N-C-L is 5,000 square feet for a single family dwelling. The property was developed in 1957 on a smaller lot size of 4,575 square feet. Since then the zone district standards have evolved to the current requirements. There are a total of 5 lots similar in size and existing floor area along the same block face. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The addition is a one story element. • The length of new wall visible from the side street is 8 feet. • The addition is setback 30 feet from the east property line which is the only property line that abuts another residential property. • The additional square footage complies with the allowable floor area for the overall 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 and will promote the general purpose of the standard in a way equally well than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA170018. E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2 Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 111 Chestnut St Cole Evans Project Manager 80524 2725 Rocky Mountain Ave, Ste 20 FCMWC, LLC 970-685-1882 3.8.7(I) cole.evans@mcwhinney.com D City code does not allow for signs to be taller than 7' in height however when looking at the architecture of the building we feel a vertical sign is equal to or better than a horizontal sign that is 7' tall. It fits with the scale of the architecture and is nominal and inconsequential to the public. I have attached 2 renderings that show both scenarios for reference. Also note that this sign will be painted (or thin cut metal lettering) that will not protrude from the building more than a couple inches 5/9/17 Cole W Evans 3. Nominal and inconsequential 2. Equal to or better than Additional Justification