The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/14/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Vice Chair Shelley La Mastra Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer 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 FEBRUARY 14, 2019 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 ZBA180046 Address: 2405 Purdue Circle Owner/Petitioner: Lyra McMillian Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to be located 6 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA190001 Address: 110 Boardwalk Drive Owner: The Dunlap DD Trust Petitioner: Schlosser Signs Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Project Description: This is a request to allow a sign to be 12.08 feet in height as measured from street grade and setback 10ft from the property line. The allowed maximum sign height is 10 feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 14, 2019 3. APPEAL ZBA190002 Address: 936 Kimball Road Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 36 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 1152 square foot accessory building is 352 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. 4. APPEAL ZBA190003 Address: 4701 Strauss Cabin Rd Owner: Harmony 23 LLC Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano Zoning District: H-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Project Description: Variance requested to install a second monument sign for the new Wyatt commercial property along E Harmony Road. The maximum number of monuments signs along any frontage is one. • OTHER BUSINESS Election of Officials • ADJOURNMENT Heidi 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 DECEMBER 13, 2018 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Long was absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • OTHER BUSINESS Shuff made a motion, seconded by Snowdon to move the Keeping Fort Collins Great Sales Tax presentation to the front of the meeting to accommodate the presenter’s schedule. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Shields, Jackson, Shuff, Bear, Snowdon Nays: None The Motion was approved. Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins, presented to the board. The Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) sales tax will sunset in December 31, 2020. Currently we have a 2.25% base rate tax that has not been increased in 36 years. We also have a long history of dedicated taxes that are 1/4-cent taxes to support street maintenance, capital improvement, and open space. Plus, the KFCG sales tax of 0.85%, which brings the total local taxes to 3.85%. As soon as the Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) was passed, City Council could no longer raise the tax rate by a Council vote, it must go to voters. There is a history of voter support to pay for the services that our residents want. KFCG is a bundled dedicated tax because by voter approval the money that comes in is divided among many buckets. This fund can also respond to emerging community trends or needs and allows Council to address things that we did not anticipate. If this tax is not renewed in full, then there will need to be some level of service reductions. One of the reasons we are trying to put this in front of the voters in 2019 is because 2020 is the next budget cycle. Council direction to date has been to not go higher than the .85%. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 December 13, 2018 Three scenarios are being presented to move forward. The first scenario is what we have now; they could propose this same option in front of the voters for a specified number of years and ask for a renewal. Another proposal is to support more services, keep the .85% and put it in the base rate. If the base rate increases then that is in perpetuity, we don’t go back to the voters. Some people like the perpetuity, they don’t want to be asked over and over, they want the services. Other people want to revote to ensure accountability with the city. The third option is some amount of increase to the base rate and leave a ¼-cent tax as well. Right now, the ¼-cent tax goes to areas like transportation and transit. We are currently paying for transportation services out of our general fund. Parks and Recreation also comes in here, as parks have a dedicated fund to be built on the development side, but no funds to maintain and replace old infrastructure in those parks. Focus is on an April 2019 election to avoid paying extra money to work with the county. That ballot language has to be referred by the February 5P th P deadline. Boardmember Stockover asked if there are any numbers to show how much we lose to online shopping. Sawyer does not have any data but agrees that our retail landscape has changed. The city is very reliant on sales tax, even in the last 10 years, our residents are subsidizing more and more services. Plus, we are not a shopping destination for surrounding areas anymore. Sawyer is also trying to educate the public on TABOR language. If we go forward with any version of the .85% tax, those ballot initiatives, by law, will have to start with language that says, “by increasing taxes”. She wants to ensure people understand they are not looking to raise our current local tax environment base. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180044 - APPROVED Address: 429 Garfield Street Owner/Petitioner: Shawn McKee Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance request is for a deck attached to the rear of the home to encroach 1.43 feet into the required 5-foot west side setback, and 10.97 feet into the required 15 feet east corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This lot is located at the corner of Garfield and Whedbee. The request is for a new deck on the rear of an existing house. The deck will extend the full length of the house, and the house already encroaches both east and west setbacks. This is an interior side lot line. Because it’s a corner lot, the required set back on the corner is 15 feet. The new deck will be covered partially on the west side of deck while the east side remains open. The deck itself is not more than 3 feet in height above grade. The encroachment on the east side will be a platform, not too much above the grade. You won’t see the deck at all from the front of the house. From the east side you may see the covering of the deck, but there is a fence on that side. Boardmember Shuff asked if the deck would still require a variance for the street side if it was under 30 inches. Beals explained that if a permit is required on any work, then the setbacks need to be met. Since this deck attaches to the primary house it does require a permit, despite the grade level. Applicant Presentation: Shawn McKee, 429 Garfield Street, addressed the board. The house is narrow and does encroach on both side setbacks. If the deck was constructed within the setback requirements, the existing door on the rear of the house would not be functional. It’s a long narrow lot, and Mr. McKee is hoping to use the deck as an extension of the home. Boardmember Snowdon inquired as to the placement of the stairs. Mr. McKee confirmed that those stairs are present to be close to the door. However, now the stairs won’t fit either due to the addition of a sidewalk on that side. Those stairs are no longer included in the plans. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 December 13, 2018 Boardmember Bear stated this request seems nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Snowdon agreed, particularly because the deck extends directly behind house, there is nothing adverse to the neighborhood. Boardmember Shuff agreed, the entire east side set back encroachment is a deck, not even visible from the street, doesn’t protrude from the existing house. Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA180044, as the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing structure encroaches into both side setbacks, the deck is open on three sides, the deck is only covered on the west side, the large parkway along the west side creates a substantial setback from the street, the deck is less than 3 feet above grade, therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the land use code contained in section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Shields, Jackson, Shuff, Bear, Snowdon Nays: None The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA180045 - APPROVED Address: 221 S. Grant Avenue Owner: Walter and Libbie Hickman Petitioners: Keira Harkin, Old Town Designs Inc. Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(C)(D)(2)(a)3 Project Description: The variance request is for a 58 square foot addition to the primary building. The existing floor area in the primary and accessory buildings is 674 square feet over the maximum allowable floor area of 4,274 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is on the corner of West Olive and South Grant. The request is for additional square footage on the rear of the second story of the existing house. This is a fairly large lot, and already exceeds the floor area allowed for the lot based on both primary and accessory buildings. The request is to enclose a second story deck. Since the deck was created, they have had leaking problems in that area. The owners have tried several times to correct the issue, but now their proposed solution is to create a second story addition to tie into the existing roof structure. From the front of the house the addition will not be visible, and there are large trees on the south side of the property to screen the addition. Applicant Presentation: Keira Harkin, 210 East Oak Street, addressed the board. Ms. Harkin has worked with Walter and Libby Hickman for about 13 years on various projects. They have tried to repair the deck twice already. The existing roof structure of the house overflows onto this deck. Also, this is west facing, so severe weather hits this side of the house. One part of the roof on the south side can’t have a gutter that will drain properly. In an effort to prevent water damage in the dining room again, they’d like to enclose the deck and integrate into the existing roof structure. Then they can gutter the whole thing and drain it properly for a permanent solution instead of ongoing maintenance issues. Boardmember Snowdon inquired if there was an option to add a roof with a gutter, but still keep this an outdoor area. Ms. Harkins replied that she did discuss that option with Beals, the issue being that would still leave a lot of exposure to the weather, and possibly not remedy situation. This is the best option for them. Audience Participation: Virginia Murn, 217 S. Grant Avenue, addressed the board. Ms. Murn lives north of the Hickman’s property. She does not see why this variance should be granted when they are already 674 square feet above code. Ms. Murn believes their backyard looks like the Waco compound already. They built a huge 2 story addition on the back that blocks her southern sun and she doesn’t see the need for more space. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 December 13, 2018 Walter Hickman, 221 S. Grant Avenue, addressed the board. He owns the house, and as Ms. Harkin mentioned, they have had several repairs and 2 complete rebuilds of the deck. They discussed the patio option, but it appears it would still not drain properly. The original remodel was 18 years ago, they are hopeful that enclosing the area will fix the issue permanently. Mr. Hickman has discussed this proposal with the neighbor to the south and she had no trouble with it. They are only trying to fix the current problem, not add any square footage. Boardmember Bear asked when the addition was added. Mr. Hickman stated it was part of the original addition in 2001. They have completely redone the top deck twice since then. Bear questioned if there was any solar impact assessment done at that time, since this neighbor has concerns on blocking her sun. Mr. Hickman clarified that Ms. Murn lives on the north side of his property and doesn’t see how this project will affect her sun exposure. Mr. Hickman did speak to the neighbor closest to the addition on the south side, and that neighbor has no issues with the proposal. Boardmember Shields asked for verification that the full footprint of the house is two stories. Ms. Harkin assisted Mr. Hickman in the response. She explained the way the property is positioned; the north side is blocked by the north wall of Mr. Hickman’s house. The area currently being discussed meets solar setback and is blocked by the north side of the house. There is no way to block any sun to the northern neighbor. Ms. Harkin also confirmed the existing home is all 2 story. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated that he always appreciates input from neighbors. The tree shadows visible in the overhead view lead him to believe that this addition will not affect the neighbor that is in opposition. Square footage is always a valid concern. However, in this case, the damage was done years ago when the addition was built. This is a relatively small addition to fix a significant problem. Boardmember Snowdon asked if this was a covered patio would the square footage count toward the total. Beals stated taking into account recent code changes, the square footage on a covered patio would not count towards the total square footage. Snowdon expressed that it’s nominal to fix an existing condition. Boardmember Shuff agreed, but appreciates the neighbor coming forward. The biggest impact was the previous addition. Right now, they are addressing the small covering of second floor space. Based on information presented, this variance would have a nominal solar impact because the previous addition has already shaped their house. The neighbor to the south is not opposed, and they are more impacted by this variance. Shuff is in support of this variance since it is existing square footage on the first floor, and it’s a remedy to a situation that has been repeatedly problematic. Boardmember Bear stated the only reasoning found is nominal and inconsequential. Bear tends to not find support for that reason. Although this addition is only 58 additional feet, this is already significantly over in square footage. And while it’s just enclosing an existing second story deck, it does change the feel. It’s unfortunate that the first addition created this problem, but she does not believe that plays a role in determining whether it’s nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Jackson agreed. Going further over in square footage is not nominal and inconsequential. She understands they are trying to fix a problem. Another option is to reduce the square footage on the first floor. Boardmember Shields agreed that a covered porch would not solve the problem. It is unfortunate that they are over in square footage, but that might have occurred before code changes. Boardmember Shuff appreciates everyone’s perspective and valid points. Code would allow them to partially enclose the space with a roof and partial height walls. Simply filling those walls with windows is nominal. This is a small amount of square footage and the difference between completely enclosing it to eliminate the issues of water infiltration would be nominal and inconsequential. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Snowdon, to approve ZBA180045, and find that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the additional 58 square feet is enclosing an existing second story deck, the addition meets setbacks and does not increase the footprint of the existing building, substantial trees on the south side of the property screen the addition from the closest property line, and it covered a roof covering over the existing patio at the second story level to tie in with the existing second floor roof structure would be allowed by code, and therefore in filling those walls would be nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 December 13, 2018 a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the land use code contained in section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Shields, Shuff, Snowdon Nays: Jackson, Bear The Motion was carried. • OTHER BUSINESS 2019 ZBA Work Plan updates were provided to the Boardmembers. This is the last ZBA hearing for the year, losing Boardmembers Shuff and Bear. Also, Boardmember Snowdon has taken a position with the City’s Light and Power division, that starts in January. Applications have been submitted for three people that have interviewed with the mayor and council member liaison. The applicants will be going forward to a resolution on December 18P , P2018. The applicants Taylor Meyer and Shelly La Mastra are applying for full 4-year terms. John McCoy will fill the rest of Boardmember Snowdon’s term. Next month, there are no variances submitted yet, but there is a possible pending item. Like last year, the vice chair will run the next hearing, and will hold elections for chair and vice chair at the end of the meeting. • ADJOURNMENT at 9:23 AM. Ralph Shields, Vice Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 14, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA180046 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2405 Purdue Circle Petitioner/Owner: Lyra McMillian Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This is a request for an accessory building to be located 6 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annexed into the city in 1958. It subsequently was platted in 1959 as part of the South College Heights Sixth Subdivision. The original primary structure was constructed in 1960. Since 1965 the property has had a required rear yard setback of 15ft. Accessory buildings are permitted to be the same height as the primary building. They are limited to 800sf in floor area. The property has large trees existing throughout the rear and side yards. 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 of the 6ft encroachment into the required 15ft rear yard setback and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The physical conditions of existing trees on the property limit the ability to comply • The encroachment varies from 2ft to 6ft along the 16ft length of the wall Therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA180046 From: Greg Redder <greg.redder@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 5:04 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Kacee Scheidenhelm <kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Zoning Modification (ZBA180046, 2405 Purdue Circle) Noah, Thanks for the information. Based on what was provided by the owner, I'll defer to the preference, or lack of, to the adjacent neighbors as the issue does not present any direct conflict to my property. I do trust that you and your department apply the zoning rules fairly and consistently across my neighborhood. Thank you -Greg On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:59 AM Noah Beals <30TUnbeals@fcgov.comU30T> wrote: Hello Greg, The variance is to encroach 6’ into the 15’ required setback. The applicant states he was not aware of the setback regulation at the time he began construction. If the variance was approved he could continue construction in that location. The overall height and size of the structure meet standards of the Land Use Code but require a building permit. I have attached what the applicant has submitted for the variance request. We will get your correspondence to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the hearing. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Greg Redder <30Tgreg.redder@gmail.com30T> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2019 5:11 PM To: Noah Beals <30Tnbeals@fcgov.com30T> Subject: Zoning Modification (ZBA180046, 2405 Purdue Circle) Dear Noah Beals, Regarding the modification request for an additional 6' into the allowed space at 2405 Purdue Circle: I'm assuming this in reference to the structure built in the backyard. Is this a request to go even further into the restricted area or is this because they already built it into the restricted area? On the surface, I'm opposed to this. In fact, I was surprised you could build something that large in your backyard here in the first place as I've not seen such a structure in this neighborhood. In all fairness to the neighbor, I'd be curious to know why the variance is being requested. Is that information you are free to share? If not and without further information, I'm opposed to the variance. Thank you, Greg Redder 2408 Purdue Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-567-0136 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 14, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 110 Boardwalk Drive Owner: The Dunlap DD Trust Petitioner: Schlosser Signs Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Variance Request: This is a request to allow a sign to be 12.08 feet in height as measured from street grade and setback 10ft from the property line. The allowed maximum sign height is 10 feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property recently redeveloped from a restaurant to urgent care facility. An existing monument sign on the property was relocated as part of the redevelopment. The physical height of the sign is 10ft. However, in measuring the height of a monument sign it is measured from the grade level of the abutting street to the top of the sign. This measurement puts the sign at 12.08 in height. The intent of measuring the signs heights based on the grade level of the street was to prevent applicants from altering grade the sign is placed on to meet code. This property as significant grade changes throughout the property. The grade changes are similar for other properties along the same block face. 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. • There are significant grade changes from the public right of way to the property. • The sign was existing in a different location. 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 ZBA190001 1/2/19 To Whom it May Concern; It is our intent to ask The City of Fort Collins, Zoning Board of Appeals, to allow MedExpress to keep their freestanding sign in the current position at 110 East Boardwalk Dr. This location is allowed to have a sign 10’ tall from grade to top of sign at its current set back of 10’ from property line. Due to the uneven levels on this property, the sign ended up approx. 11.42’ from the street grade along College Ave on the leading edge of the sign closest to the street, and approx. 12.08’ from the College Ave grade on the other end of the sign. We feel that the sign will affect the current location in an inconsequential way. The sign was originally located along Boardwalk Dr. dating back to 2017. For better visibility for patients, Schlosser Signs, Inc. was hired to move the sign for the customer from the Boardwalk side of the property to the College Ave. side of the property. Upon final zoning inspection it was determined that the sign is too high when measured from the nearby street grade rather than the ground it sits on. Sincerely, Erin Garcia Erin Garcia Schlosser Signs Inc. 3597 Draft Horse Ct. Loveland, CO 80538 970-593-1334 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 14, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 936 Kimball Road Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Variance Request: This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 36 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 1152 square foot accessory building is 352 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annexed into the city in 1970 as part of the Overland Trail Annexation. It later was subdivided into residential lots in 1977. Before the property was subdivided there was Single family home with accessory buildings that were built in approx. 1955. One of the accessory buildings remained on the lot of the subject property. This building has remained and is approximately 1,200 sf single story (7ft-8ft in height). It is a nonconforming building and is being removed. The primary house on the subject property was built in 1994 in front of the existing nonconforming accessory structure. In November of 2018 a City inspector placed a stop work order on the subject property. The proposed building was being erected without the issuance of a building permit. When the applicant submitted plans for a building it was found that the proposed structure exceeds the maximum square footage for an accessory building. The existing primary structure is one story and has 1,380 sf of floor area. The maximum height for a primary and accessory building is 28ft. Minimum setbacks are 5ft for the side yards and 15 ft for the rear yard. The proposed structure meets the setbacks and minimum height for the zone district. 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 denial and finds that: • The 352 sf is a 44% increase to the allowable square footage for an accessory building and is not nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA190002 Request for Zoning Variance Location of Request: 936 Kimball Rd. Ft Collins, Co, 80521 Subject of Variance request: Pole Barn for R.V./ Boat storage 32’ x 36’ with a roof height of 19’4” to be placed where a old farm barn has been. This would increase my property value and provide a sound barrier to 921 Rocky Rd. Please refer to parcel map for reference. Statement: This variance is for a Boat/R V/ 2P nd P garage size 32’ X 36’ The 32’ depth running East and West with the 36’ width being the North and South direction. I am requesting the deviation of existing allowable structure on my property to accommodate the above mentioned structure (1152 sq.ft.), replacing a dilapidated horse barn built in 1955. (1200 sq. ft). Building: Build a pole barn 32’ x 36’ with a wall height of 14’ and roof peak of 19’4” Metal roof and siding ( siding to be added at a later date). To match existing house. Conflict: There has been some controversy about the height of my storage garage a.k.a. pole barn. The attached doc. from CSU shows the height of the sun in a 12 month period. During the growing season of mid March to mid Sept. the shadow cast by my building will be at the greatest 15.6ft. and at the least 7.18ft. My building is 20’ from my property on the North. This new structure will enhance the neighborhood by replacing the horse barn and matching my house, and also increase my property value. Please refer to the plot map for references. Your consideration of this is greatly appreciated Larry Dietz Right angle side a 19.4’ Dec. 21 26o shadow 39.78’ Nov. & Jan. 29.4o shadow 34.43’ Oct. & Feb 38.7o shadow 24.22’ Sep. & Mar. 49.8o shadow 15.6’ Aug. & Apr. 61.4o shadow 10.58’ Jul. & May 69.7oshadow 7.18’ June 21 72.9o shadow 5.97’ Shadows don’t indicate all daylight hours because after noon, the barn’s shadows will be less. From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:38:14 PM From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:25 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Please find the attached photos demonstrating the excessive size of the illegal pole barn being built by Larry Dietz at 936 Kimball Road. This structure has significantly altered the quality of life in my yard. Direct sunlight to the southern exposure of my yard is severely compromised during the fall, winter and spring. The shadow caused by the barn extends into my frontyard. The views from my sittingroom window and my patio doors are entirely filled by this barn. A 30% reduction in size would make a noticable difference. I do not support a variance allowing Mr. Dietz to exceed the 800sqft maximum. Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 1 pg. 1 ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 1 pg. 2 ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 1 pg. 3 ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 1 pg. 4 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:38:06 PM From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:12 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Please find the attached photos of the previous chicken coop versus the new 2-story pole barn. Please note that the old 1200 sqft structure was/is 6 feet tall on the northern side. It was not visible over a standard, 6' tall backyard fence. As these pictures demonstrate, the new building is nothing like the previous building. The square footage of the previous, grandfathered building should have no bearing on the maximum square footage of the new shed. The 800 sqft maximum should be enforced. Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 2 pg. 1 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:02:52 AM Attachments: image001.png Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:16 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Please find the attached photos of the illegal RV shed being built at 936 Kimball Road--as viewed from the three surrounding streets. It is clear from these photos that this structure dominates the block. Approaching from the north on Kimball Road this building comes into view a full block away. It overpowers the surrounding houses and violates the integrity and character of our neighborhood. A 30% reduction in size will make a noticable difference. The 800 sqft maximum should be enforced. Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 3 pg. 1 ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 3 pg. 2 ZBA190002 – 936 Kimball Rd Correspondence 3 pg. 3 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:49:38 AM Attachments: image001.png Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:02 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Please find the attached photo of Larry Dietz's RV. It is an older model, single slide, fifth wheel, Springdale by Keystone. It is 10'6" tall and less than 225sqft. Requiring that Mr. Dietz adhere to 800sqft maximum will not inhibit his ability to maximize the use of his property. 800sqft will allow room for parking his RV, for ample storage, a workshop area, and the parking of his boat, or another vehicle. The illegal overage of 30% is unnecessary. The 800 sqft maximum should be enforced. Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:39 PM To: stefanie deangelis Subject: RE: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Hello Stefanie, Thanks for the email. I have received two emails with pictures. We will get these to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the hearing. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:27 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn Mr. Beals, I have begun to forward pictures for the ZBA meeting on 2/14 regarding the illegal barn at 936 Kimball Road. Please let me know if there is a better way to ensure that this information is reviewed by the Board. Thank-you, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:14 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Gerry Horak <ghorak@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn--Statement of opposition Please allow this letter to serve as my statement of opposition to Larry Dietz's request for variance regarding his RV shed at 936 Kimball Road. I do not approve of an exception to exceed the 800sqft maximum. This oversized building violates the integrity and character of our neighborhood. It is completely out of place on streets dominated by modest, single story homes. This RV shed has a larger square footage imprint than six of the homes on our block. Four of which are only single story--and as such, are half as big as this barn. The Dietz house is only 228sqft larger than the shed; but, the additional 4' wall height makes the RV shed the larger of the two buildings. And, the building exceeds 10% of their lot's net area (without accounting for the portion of the previous shed that is still standing). It is prominently visible from all three surrounding streets and comes into view a full block away on Kimball Road. This is not an appropriate structure for a residential neighborhood. The additional 352sqft contribute significantly to its shocking size. All surrounding yards are diminished by such a large structure erected in the center of our block. This building blots out the sun and the sky. All previous views of the horizon are replaced by vertical views of this barn. All openness and spaciousness is reduced to a vertical cage. Some yards are now framed entirely by this building. In some homes, previous views of Horsetooth are gone. In others, direct sun exposures are severely compromised. These losses negatively impact the desirability of our properties, our property values, and the quality of life in our homes and yards. Reducing the size of this building by 30% to the legal maximum square footage would make a considerable difference. I recognize Mr. Dietz's right to build a shed for his RV--but the size of this building is excessive. Larry's RV is an older model, single slide, fifth wheel, Springdale by Keystone. It is 10'6" tall and less than 225sqft. Requiring that Mr. Dietz adhere to the 800sqft maximum will not inhibit his ability to maximize the use of his property. 800sqft will allow room for parking his RV, for ample storage, a workshop area, and the parking of his boat, or another vehicle. The illegal overage of 30% is unnecessary. Any arguments that the square footage of the previous, grandfathered shed should be maintained in the new building are not relevant. The original building was 6' tall on the northern side and had no discernable impact on neighboring yards. It was not even visible over a standard 6' backyard fence. And lastly, when Larry Dietz began construction of this barn, he knew that what he was doing was illegal in at least two different ways. He knowingly, intentionally broke the law. This alone should disqualify him from any special considerations or variances. Asking forgiveness instead of permission has no place in Zoning and Building departments. By deliberately disregarding the requirement for a permit, Larry forfeited his right to claim ignorance. He did not make an innocent mistake. By choosing to illegally build this oversized pole barn, Larry bears full responsibility for any and all errors made during construction. He should be required to correct these errors, not be given a pathway to incorporate them. Information and regulations are openly, readily available to the public via phone and internet. It took a two minute phone call to the Zoning Department for me to discover the maximum height and square footage allowances for a secondary structure in our neighborhood. Larry has no excuse. This proposed 352sqft, or 30% variance absolutely diverges from the standards of the Land Use Code in more than a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of our neighborhood. I do not support a variance to allow this building to exceed the 800sqft maximum designated for our district. And, I would request that Larry reconsider his design to accommodate his RV without the extremes and excesses demonstrated by the square footage and height of the current building. Larry can build a shed for his RV that doesn't destroy all of the surrounding yards. Thank-you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn--revision Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 10:44:35 AM Attachments: 11 Neighbor Correspondence.pdf From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 8:31 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Fw: 936 Kimball Road illegal barn--revision The Dietz's have lived in our neighborhood a long time and have many friends here--all of whom signed his letter. The Griffins are the one exception--they are fairly new to their home. Of the 6 signed statements of approval gathered by Larry Dietz (see attachment), only 2 share backyard space with 936 Kimball Road. The remaining 4 homeowners live across the street, or across the culdesac. This barn does not affect their backyards, their views, or their homes in any way. The most affected properties are 2804 W. Elizabeth (directly south--approves), 921 Rocky Road (directly east--unknown) and 930 Kimball Road (directly north-- opposes). I do feel that those of us whose lives are actually altered by this barn should have more say. Also, it's worth noting that although my name is listed, I have not been contacted. In Larry's letter, he claims "the city has issued a stop work order as my project is larger per my lot size." This is not true. This seems deliberately misleading in order to illicit sympathy. Larry is not an innocent victim being bullied by the City for having a big backyard. Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 14, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4701 Strauss Cabin Rd Owner: Harmony 23 LLC Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano Zoning District: H-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Variance Request: Variance requested to install a second monument sign for the new Wyatt commercial property along E Harmony Road. The maximum number of monuments signs along any frontage is one. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property recently received approval for a Multi-family development consisting of 368 dwelling units on 14 acres. The frontage of development along Harmony road is1,045 linear feet. 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 variances are not detrimental to the public good. • The two grounds signs on E Harmony Rd. are a substantial distance apart, not creating a clutter of signage along the street frontage. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, 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 ZBA190003 Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal 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; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. 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. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO 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 __Nicole _________Vatrano _______________________________ 1/4/19 Board of Adjustments City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80528 Dear Board of Adjustments, We are requesting a variance to the Land Use Code 3.8.7.2. We would like consideration of the board to allow The Wyatt to have a second monument sign on the North West corner of the property on Harmony. All monument signs will be located within the property lines and meet all other city codes and requirements regarding, height and square footage. The property located at 4701 Strauss Cabin Rd is a very large property, with a frontage of 1,021.00 feet on Harmony Rd. The Wyatt would like the additional sign at the north- west corner of the property, to allow motorists to be aware of the location, heading east on Harmony, as they crest they hill. There are two approved signs at the entrance of the Wyatt on Strauss Cabin and one at the corner of Strauss Cabin and Harmony. The requested additional sign will be placed 775 feet from the one on the corner of Strauss Cabin and Harmony. Placing a sign at this location will diverge from the code in a nominal and inconsequential way. There are other properties on Harmony that were allowed 2 monuments on the same frontage. One of those has a frontage of 830 feet. We feel that this will comply with the general purpose and standard of the area. Thank you for your consideration of our application, Nicole Vatrano Permit Tech DaVinci Sign Systems, Inc. 970-203-9292