The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/12/2018 - 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 JULY 12, 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 ZBA180020 Address: 1022 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner/Owner: Jeffrey and Mary Pace Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) and 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This request is to allow 50 feet in length of a fence to be 8 feet tall and setback zero feet from the property line. The allowed maximum height of a fence is 6 feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA180021 Address: 216 N. College Avenue Owners: 200 N. College, LLC Petitioner: Gast Johnson & Muffly, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, and Brinkman Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.1(D)(3) Project Description: This request is to not have existing off-premise signage be included in the total of allowable signage for the property, leaving the available sign allowance for new tenants of the building. The maximum sign allowance for the property is 636 square feet. Existing off-premise signage includes 1,200 square feet. The request would result in 1,836 square feet of possible signage on the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 July 12, 2018 3. APPEAL ZBA180022 Address: 110 Circle Drive Petitioner/Owner: Jodie Riesenberger and Matt Reddy Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This request is to allow an additional 149 square feet of floor area in rear half of the lot. The maximum allowed floor area in the rear half of this lot is 826 square feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA180023 Address: 6175 Eagle Roost Drive Petitioner: ESE Consultants Owner: Toll Co I LLC Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(2) Project Description: This request is to allow a 5-inch encroachment into the 15 feet front setback. 5. APPEAL ZBA180024 Address: 610 Cherry Street Petitioner/Owner: Joshua Beck Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) and 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This request is to allow a pergola to encroach 14 feet into the 15 feet rear setback and 4 feet into the 5 feet side setback. The pergola posts would be 1 foot from the property line both rear and side. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 12, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1022 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner/Owner: Jeffrey and Mary Pace Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) and 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This request is to allow 50 feet in length of a fence to be 8 feet tall and setback zero feet from the property line. The allowed maximum height of a fence is 6 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was redeveloped in 2015. It was fueling station with convenience store that was subdivided into six single-family attached lots and 1 commercial lot. This is the most eastern residential lot of the redevelopment. It is zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). The abutting lot to the east is zoned Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L). Within the last year, this abutting property has increased in buildings and building size and is under construction. An existing 6 ft. tall fence exists on the property line. There is a change in grade at the property line as well. 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 that: • The request is not detrimental to the public good. • The lattice is not opaque and still provides some transparency. • The lattice is constructed of similar materials of the fence. • The lattice is for 50 feet of the full 145 feet length of the property line • The view from the public right of way is minimal. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA180020. From: Alan Strope [mailto:alan@savanthomesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 1:02 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Vicky Hicks <vicky@trademarkpmg.com>; Alan Strope <alan@savanthomesinc.com> Subject: Appeal # ZBA180020 Mr. Noah Beals; I received your letter regarding the zoning board of appeals regarding the Pace Residence. As an adjacent property owner, builder/Developer/Owner of the Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue, and President of the Home Owners Association, I would like to comment via email on the proposed fence for 1022 W. Mountain Avenue. This address is located above the current flood plain to meet the city flood plain requirements. The home directly located to the east is below the flood plain and is substantially lower. Therefore, allowing an 8ft tall privacy fence so one neighbor is not constantly looking down on the adjacent neighbor would allow for privacy between the 2 neighbors. It appears the location of the fence at the 8ft height is substantially back from the front property line by 40ft and only goes about half way between Mountain Ave. and the Alley. I do not feel this would be obtrusive to our project or any of the neighbors or anyone on Mountain Avenue and I would support this variance to an 8ft high fence on the property line. Thank you and feel free to contact me with any additional information or questions. Alan Strope www.SavantHomesInc.com ZBA180020 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 12, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 216 N. College Avenue Petitioners: Gast Johnson & Muffly, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Brinkman & Lamar Owners: 200 N. College, LLC Zoning District: Downtown (D) Code Section: 3.8.7.1(D)(3) Project Description: This request is to not have existing off-premise signage be included in the total of allowable signage for the property, leaving the available sign allowance for new tenants of the building. The maximum sign allowance for the property is 636 square feet. Existing off-premise signage includes 1,200 square feet. The request would result in 1,836 square feet of possible signage on the property. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was approved for redevelopment in 2017. What was originally 1 lot with a couple commercial buildings was subdivided into 3 lots with 6 commercial buildings. Two of the new buildings were existing but received additions and façade changes as part of the redevelopment. The 216 N College property is one of the existing buildings that received such changes. One of the existing elements of this building is 4 rooftop off-premise signs (billboards) that are sized 12’x 25’ (300sf) each, which have been on the rooftop for over 50 years. In general, signs are regulated by the Land Use Code (LUC) to prevent the proliferation of signs and to maintain a high-quality aesthetic environment. Some of the current standards in place include a limitation of square footage of signage per property, a prohibition on rooftop signs, and a prohibition on new off-premise signs. The subject property’s current allotment of sign square footage is 636 sf. This allowance can be divided among the multi-tenants of the building and through the different sign types permitted by the sign section of LUC. The issue in this case is the 4 existing off-premise signs that are on the roof already constitute a total of 1,200 sf. of sign area, which, in itself, exceeds the overall allowance leaving no square footage for any new tenants. This overage of sign allowance and location of the signs on the roof, are both nonconformities with the current sign standards, however, the billboards themselves are not a nonconforming use on the property. As mentioned in the applicants’ submittal, the Federal Highway Beautification Act prevents any new off- premise signage to be located within a certain distance of a scenic byway. This portion of N. College Ave is within the scenic byway and would not allow for new off-premise signage, which aligns with the LUC prohibition of new off-premise signage. These standards would prevent a new, smaller size off-premise sign. It has been a goal of the City to reduce the number of off-premise signs. As property is developed or redeveloped they are reviewed for compliance with current standards of the City including but not limited to the LUC. When this property was being reviewed for redevelopment, staff applied this historical interpretation, and it was acknowledged by the property owner and City that these signs were nonconforming because of their size and location. The approved redevelopment plans indicated the elimination of these nonconformities by removing the off-premise signs. The subsequent building permit for 216 N College Ave also illustrated demo of the off-premise signs. This change demonstrated compliance with the Land Use Code. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 2 At the time of purchase of the property the current building owner (Brinkman) was assigned a lease agreement with Lamar (the owner of the off-premise signs) and the two amended the original lease agreement to reflect Brinkman as the landlord under the original lease. The current term of the original lease that commenced in 2008 is 15 years. This lease should expire in September of 2023. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval to allow the existing off-premise signage to remain and the allowable square footage of signage to be increased to 1,836sf for the period of 5 years and finds that: • Granting the variance for 5-years, the remaining time on the current lease, the request is not detrimental to the public good. • The current owner was assigned a lease agreement at the time of purchase and so did not cause the hardship imposed by the lease. • The lease is set to expire in September 2023. • The off-premise sign has existed over 50 years and became a nonconformity when the applicable regulations were created. • If the variance is not approved, then new tenants of the building do not have sign allowance to advertise their business. • Once the lease expires in September 2023, the hardship no longer exists and the Applicant can choose whether to keep either the billboards or the tenant signs in order to comply with the allotted square footage of signage for the property. Therefore, during the remaining 5 years of the lease agreement, strict application of the sign standards of the Land Use Code result an exceptional practical difficulty upon the tenants and applicant that was not caused by the act or omission of themselves. The approval with a condition would not be a strict application that causes an exceptional practical difficulty and any renewal of a lease after the current term is expired would no longer be a hardship because it would be caused by the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA180021, with the following condition: • This variance will expire on October 1st, 2023. Attachments: MEMO: Billboard Reduction Options -----Original Message----- From: Unthethered <30TUUnthethered@aol.comU30T> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 9:15 PM To: 30Tnbeals@fcgov.com30T Cc: 30Tdean@landlordlaw.net30T Subject: Application for zoning variance 216 N. College Mr. Noah Beals, I received your letter as an adjacent property owner in reference to the public hearing before the zoning board of appeals for 216 N. College Ave. As a taxpayer and property owner I oppose the granting of a variance for the following reasons: 1) I believe the proposal most certainly would diverge from the standards of the land use code in more than a nominal and in a very consequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood provided that the granting of the variance would result in substantial detriment to the public good. Granting an additional 30% would negatively impact the neighborhood. This is not a minor deviation this is significant change. In this instance it would appear that deep pocketed developers who retain expensive legal representation receive preferential treatment from the city. 2) Granting a variance in this instance creates a unlevel playing field for other property owners and business owners who lack the financial and political resources that developers possess. 3) Granting a variance in this instance could open the city to legal liability from those opposed or negatively impacted from such a significant deviation of zoning codes. 4) The city of Fort Collins has already shown this project special and preferential treatment by allowing open containers to be shared in the next used environment. I implore you to deny the variance for the aforementioned reasons. Sincerely, P. Schultz Si Como No LLC -----Original Message----- From: Toby Gadd [30TUmailto:toby@tobygadd.comU30T] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2018 1:27 PM To: Unthethered <30TUnthethered@aol.com30T>; Noah Beals <30Tnbeals@fcgov.com30T> Cc: 30Tdean@landlordlaw.net30T Subject: RE: Application for zoning variance 216 N. College Dr. Mr. Beals, As I feel compelled to note that the developers of The Exchange have already demonstrated disregard for neighboring businesses and common-sense sign norms by installing a very large "216 North College" sign in the middle of the building that FACES Pine Street. This causes confusion to passers-by and customers attempting to locate businesses on Pine Street. Further, it creates the potential for life- endangering emergency-services confusion if someone were to make an emergency call from Pine Street and reporting it as "North College" because that's the only "street sign" that is highly visible on Pine Street. Since the developers of the Exchange have already exercised their desires to create an unlevel playing field, I see no compelling reason to give them further unfair advantages in the form of a variance. Thank you, Toby Toby Gadd President & Co-Founder Nuance Chocolate 214 Pine Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Office: (970) 484-2330 Cell: (970) 481-9066 30Ttoby@nuancechocolate.com30T 30Twww.NuanceChocolate.com30T N N N N N ZBA180021 216 N. College - South Across Parking Lot - Pre Redevelopment 216 N. College - South Building View- Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - South Plaza View with Containers- Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - Southwest Across Plaza- Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - Southeast Across College - Pre Redevelopment 216 N. College - Southeast Across College - Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - East Across College - Pre Redevelopment 216 N. College - East Across College- Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - East Across College - Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - Northeast Building View - Pre Redevelopment 216 N. College - Northeast Building View - Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - Northeast Across College - Post Redevelopment 216 N. College - North Across Jefferson - Post Redevelopment North Plaza View - Post Redevelopment West Plaza View - Post Redevelopment Billboard One and a Half Blocks North of 216 N. College Billboards Southeast of 216 N. College Located at Riverside and Mulberry Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 12, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 110 Circle Dr Petitioner/Owners: Jodie Riesenberger and Matt Reddy Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This request is to allow an additional 149 square feet of floor area in rear half of the lot. The maximum allowed floor area in the rear half of this lot is 826 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was annexed into the City in 1924. It was later platted in 1945 as part of the Circle Drive Plat. The original structure was completed in 1946. It is uncertain the number of changes that it has undertaken since 1946. The property is 6,615 square feet in size and has not changed in size since platted in 1945. The current Land Use Code standards of the Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density (N-C-L) zone district limits the floor area for the lot and for the rear-half of the lot. The allowable floor area for the lot with an accessory building is 2,573 square feet and for the rear half of the lot 826 square feet. The existing floor area and the proposed addition to the residence and the detached shed total 1,822 square feet. This is under the allowable floor area by 751 square feet. In the rear-half of the lot the existing floor area and the proposed shed total 975 square feet. This is over the allowable floor area in the rear half by 149 square feet. 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 an additional 149 square feet of allowable floor area in the rear-half of the lot and finds that: • The request is not detrimental to the public good. • The proposed shed is meeting all other standards of the N-C-L zone district. • The lot depth mimics lots typically found the R-L zone district and not those typically in the N-C-L zone district • The additional square footage is 751 square feet below the allowable floor area for the entire lot. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA180022. ZBA180022 EXISTING 1- STORY HOUSE SIDE YARD SET- BACK SIDE YARD SET- BACK REAR YARD SET- BACK FRONT YARD SET-BACK 62' - 6" 5' - 0" 86' - 0" 15' - 0" 5' - 0" 52' - 6" 5' - 0" 106' - 0" CIRCLE DRIVE ALLEY NEW SHED NEW COVERED ENTRY & PORCH NEW PRIVACY SCREEN (VERTICAL TRELLIS) COVERED ROOF NEW SHADE STRUCTURE Property Address: 110 Circle Drive Property Owner: Jodie Riesenberger & Matt Reddy General Contractor: Sol Structures Contact: Eric Newcomber 970-443-3233 Parcel No: 97133-27-012 Legal Description: LOT 12, CIRCLE DR, FTC Zoning District: NCL Subdivision: 1021 - CIRCLE DRIVE Neighborhood: 19711 Setbacks: Front Yard- 15 Feet Rear Yard- 5 Feet (to Alley) Side Yard- 5 Feet Lot Size: 6,615 SF Floor Area Ratio: 20% of lot area + 1,000 SF =(.20 x 6,615)+1,000 Allowable Total Floor Area: 2,323 SF Proposed Floor Area: Existing First Floor: 1,524 SF Proposed Entry Addition: 68 SF Proposed Shed: 230 SF Total: 1,822 SF Allowable Floor Area on Rear 50% of lot: 3,307 SF * .25 = 826 SF Proposed area on Rear 50% of lot: Existing First Floor: 745 SF Proposed Shed: 230 SF Total: 975 SF W/D REF. 5' - 0" 25' - 6" 9' - 6" 8' - 0" 5' - 0" DINING ROOM FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 MSTR. CLO. CLO. BATH HALL ENTRY CLO. LIVING ROOM MASTER BEDROOM 1/2 BATH LAUNDRY/ MUD ROOM CLOSET BIKE STORAGE 1' - 1" 11' - 4" 1' - 1" 16' - 5" SHOP 17' - 0" 8' - 6" (VIF) 13' - 6" 5' - 0" 12' - 11" 2' - 8" 4' - 0" 4' - 8" 3' - 0" 2' - 8" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com FLOOR PLAN Reddy-Reisenberger Residence 110 Circle Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 6.12.18 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com ELEVATIONS Reddy-Reisenberger Residence 110 Circle Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 6.12.18 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 4 3D View-NORTHEAST 10' - 0" MAX. EAVE HT. 5' - 0" ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE 20' - 0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com ELEVATIONS Reddy-Reisenberger Residence 110 Circle Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 6.12.18 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 3 SHED- PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1 3D View- SOUTHWEST Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 12, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180023 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 6175 Eagle Roost Drive Petitioners: ESE Consultants Owners: Toll Company (Toll Co I LLC) Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(2) Project Description: This request is to allow a 5-inch encroachment into the 15 feet front setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property received development approval in the County in 2015. Immediately after approval it was annexed into the City to be constructed. As it annexed into the City it was zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district. The front setback in L-M-N is 15 feet. The builder submitted building permit plans that illustrated compliance with the setback demonstrating the intention to meet the standard. After the initial construction and towards the end of completion of the structure, it was found the building encroaches into the setback. 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 that: • The request is not detrimental to the public good. • The 5-inch encroachment is undiscernible from the sidewalk. • The 5-inch encroachment is for 25.5 feet of the 61.6 feet width of the building. • The 5-inch encroachment is still outside of an easement. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA180023. k�olli� City of Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code Articles The Zoning 3 and Board 4 of the of Appeals Land Use has Code. been The granted Zoning the Board authority of Appeals to approve shall not variances authorize from any use the in requirements a zoning district of request other finds that than must the those modification meet uses at least which of one the are of standard specifically the following would permitted justification not be in detrimental the reasons: zoning district. to the The public Board good. may Additionally, grant variances the variance where it (1) property, by reason including, of exceptional but not physical limited conditions to physical or conditions other extraordinary such as exceptional and exceptional narrowness, situations shallowness, unique to or the difficulties topography, or the undue strict hardship application upon of the the occupant/code requirements applicant of would the property, result in unusual provided and that exceptional such difficulties practical 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) whenway the proposal considered will not in the diverge context from of the the Land neighborhood. Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential 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. extension However, for if reasonable good cause and shown necessary by the under applicant, the facts the Zoning and circumstances Board of Appeals of the may case. consider An extension a one-time request 6 month must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Variance Address City 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. 16175 Fort Collins, Eagle Roost CO Drive I to if Petitioner's Petitioner's not the the Owner Owner Name, Relationship is lsub IESE Contactor Consultants, Inc I I Zip Code 180528 Petitioner's Address I 10 Inverness Drive East, Suite 1 rj Owner's Name !Toll Co I LLC Petitioner's Phone# 1303-877-4071 I Code Section(s) 13.5.2(E)(2) Petitioner's Email ljaxtell@eseconsultants.com I Zoning District ILMN - Low Density Mixed Use Additional !Adam Hess I Representative's Name Justification(s) 13. Nominal and inconsequential I Representative's Address 16327 Spring Seed Way I Justification(s) !Additional Justification I Representative's Phone # 1970-658-7965 I Justification(s) !Additional Justification I Representative's Email lahess@tollbrothers.com I If Reasoning not enough room, community The front of and the garage surrounding extends properties. 5" into the With front the setback, minimal but amount does of not encroachment impact the feel it will of the not additional written adversely affect the use of the driveway. information may be submitted Date I June 7, 2018 I Signature IJ ,A --- � I ZBA180023 AREA OF ENCROACHMENT Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 12, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 610 Cherry Street Petitioner/Owner: Joshua Beck Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) and 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This request is to allow a pergola to encroach 14 feet into the 15 feet rear setback and 4 feet into the 5 feet side setback. The pergola posts would be 1 foot from the property line both rear and side. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property annexed into the city approximately in 1881 and later developed circa 1905. Since this time, it is uncertain the number of changes that have occurred the property. The original platted lots were oriented to Whitcomb street. However, the primary building built in 1905 was oriented to Cherry. The resulting parcel is shallow in depth and small only 3421 square feet. The existing structure does meet the side setback of 5ft, however it encroaches into the rear setback 1.5ft. 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 encroachment of 14 feet for the length of 12.5 feet into the rear setback and finds that: • The request is not detrimental to the public good. • The pergola is open on three sides. • The pergola has a semi-open roof that does not create concentrated water run-off. • The lot is shallow in the context of the neighborhood. 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 the shallowness of the parcel created an exceptional situation unique to the property. Further, staff recommends denial of 4 feet encroachment into the side-yard setback finding: • The primary building meets the side-yard setback and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence on how the request is nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. • A unique hardship to the property has not been sufficiently identified related to the side-yard setback. • The proposal does not support the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rear-yard encroachment and denial of the side-yard encroachment of APPEAL # ZBA180024. 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 E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRWVHOILPSRVHG From: Ginny Sawyer Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:34 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: ZBA 180024 Hi Noah, My backyard neighbors, Josh Beck and Kristin Kjer, are requesting a modification to allow for a pergola in their backyard (pergola will encroach into setbacks.) As the nearest neighbor I have no issue with this modification. Our lots are all small and the existing setbacks are very limiting. A pergola will be a nice addition for them and will not have any negative impact to me or other neighbors. It may sound extreme to have the posts just one foot off the property line but the pergola placement is not near any structure and only abuts adjacent backyards. Please allow this modification. Thank you. Ginny Sawyer 405 N Whitcomb St. 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 Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK 7LPHDP 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 610 Cherry Street 80521 610 Cherry Street Joshua Beck & Kristin Kjer 970-566-2122 joshuabeck1@hotmail.com NCM Lot 9711218029 is 3400 sq.ft., the smallest in the neighborhood. The lot is zoned NCM, with a minimum setback for side yards of 5' and non-alley backyards of 15". Our side yard is only 5'6" wide, while our backyard measures 13'6" from fence line to house, making it impossible to construct the proposed pergola. Ideally, we would incorporate the two eastern (side yard) posts with the fence to maximize space, while keeping it aesthetically pleasing to all parties impacted. June 13, 2018 Joshua Curtis Beck 1. Hardship 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification *seeking variance for 149 SF additional in rear 50% of lot 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com SITE PLAN Reddy-Reisenberger Residence 110 Circle Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 6.12.18 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN