The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/12/2020 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Mar 2020 AgendaRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 MARCH 12, 2020 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 ZBA200007 Address: 1105 Hillcrest Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Kai Kleer Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request for a shed to encroach 2 feet into the required 5 foot side setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA200008 Address: 714 W. Mountain Ave. Owner: Hanke Thode Petitioner: High Craft Builders Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)2.; 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(D)(6); 4.7(E)(3) Project Description: This request proposes an expansion of an existing accessory building and requires four variances. The first variance is to exceed the overall floor area allowance for the lot by 1065 square feet. The second variance is to exceed the rear half floor area allowance by 280.25 square feet. The third variance is to exceed the allowable floor area of an accessory building by 726 square feet, where the max floor area is 600 square feet. The fourth variance is to encroach 4 feet 8 inches into the required 5 foot rear-yard setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 12, 2020 3. APPEAL ZBA200009 Address: 144 2nd Street Owner/Petitioner: Michael Rossman Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 4.4(D)(2)(e) Project Description: This is a request to remove the existing house and accessory structure and to build a new house and accessory structure. This request requires three variances. The first variance is to allow the new house to encroach 7 feet into the 15 foot street side-yard setback along Logan Ave. The second variance is to allow a new garage to encroach 2 feet into the 15 foot street side-yard setback along Logan Ave. The third variance is to allow the new house to be 33 feet in height, the require maximum height is 28 feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA200010 Address: 819 Locust Ct. Owner: Laurene Rogers Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(2), 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This request is to encroach 4 feet into the required 15 foot front and street side setbacks. • OTHER BUSINESS Board Procedures and Conflicts of Interest – Claire Havelda • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 13, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to approve the January 9, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200001 – APPROVED Address: 616 West Street Owner: Susan Opdahl Petitioner: Casey Opdahl Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1)(c) Project Description: This a request for a proposed 600 square foot detached garage to be placed 22 feet in front of the primary structure. The required placement of an accessory structure is 10 feet behind the primary building. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this lot is a unique triangle shape. There is no alley present, so the garage can take access from the street. However, code states the garage needs to be setback 10 feet behind the front of the primary structure. The primary structure has existed since 1931. It would be difficult for the garage to be placed within code due to the triangular shape of the lot that tapers down towards the south end of the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 13, 2020 There is also a ditch on the property that requires a buffer and a shed on the property that both make it more challenging to place the garage further back. The proposal is a 2 car garage facing towards the street. Vice Chair LaMastra noted from the sketch it appears the garage is also encroaching into the front yard setback. Beals explained there is a specific standard for garages detailing the 10 foot setback from the primary structure. Boardmember LaMastra is correct that normally the 15 foot setback from the street would apply, but the garage setback is the applicable standard for this circumstance. Applicant Presentation: Casey Opdahl, 616 West Street, addressed the board. He added that he has spoken with the canal company, and they reserve the right to establish their own setback requirements. Both existing structures already encroach into the canal company’s easements. Therefore, this is the only spot they can find that tries to accommodate both the city codes and canal company codes. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the garage can’t go further south, more towards the point of the triangular lot. Mr. Opdahl replied there is a fire hydrant located there, it is difficult to see from the pictures. Proposed placement has the garage about 20 feet from the fire hydrant, they could possibly push it 2 or 3 feet further, but that would be the limit. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this seems very straightforward, not controversial and no neighbors in opposition, he would be in support. Boardmember Shuff would also be in support. Boardmember Lawton noted the property next to it has a huge garage right next to the property line and this would be an improvement to the area. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA200001 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the east prop line is uniquely defined by the existing ditch, the primary structure limits the placement of any accessory structure, and there is not an alley for the garage to access from, therefore this variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 2. APPEAL ZBA200002– APPROVED Address: 1800 W. Mountain Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Justine Reed Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7.D(2)(a)1.; 4.7.D(3); 4.7.E(3); and 4.7.E(4) Project Description: The request is for a variance to construct an attached 240 square foot garage to the existing single- family home. The proposed garage encroaches 3.6 inches into the 15 foot side setback on Frey; and 1.1 feet into the 15 foot rear setback. Additionally, the property exceeds the overall allowable floor area of 1859 square feet by 16 square feet, the entire proposed garage would be an increase over the allowable floor area, as well as exceeding the rear half allowable square footage of 581 square feet by 488 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner lot requesting a one car garage to be built on the north end of the existing structure. The property faces Mountain Ave. so the north end is the rear half of the property. The existing house does encroach into that setback already, the proposed garage aligns with the wall of the house. The lot originally extended from Mountain Ave. to the alley and it was subdivided afterwards, resulting in a uniquely small and shallow property where most of the house is in the rear half of the lot. There are existing parking spaces that encroach into the public right of way and this request will allow one of Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 13, 2020 these vehicles be parked on the property. The neighbor to the north has a garage abutting the property line as well, Beals believes they had a variance granted. Applicant Presentation: Justine Reed, 1800 West Mountain Ave, addressed the board. Most of the neighbors also have garages, and their proposed garage would not be visible from Mountain Ave. Boardmember Lawton asked if the house is for sale, Ms. Reed confirmed that is the case. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover asked with the 2 existing parking spaces and all the garages nearby, are there any access issues. Beals doesn’t have a definitive answer on that, but it may contribute to an issue if there is one present already. Ms. Reed confirmed there is no sidewalk at that location and Fey street is not paved. Stockover is in support of the variance. Vice Chair LaMastra stated we see this circumstance often, these subdivided lots are challenging, she would be in support. This is a small one car garage; they can’t build much smaller than 12 feet by 20 feet. Chair Shields agreed this proposal fits in the context of the neighborhood. Boardmember Lawton stated there is also a lot of garage space across the street, he would be in support. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA200002 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the property does not have alley access, the shared property line on the north is only a 5 foot setback, the addition is one story and one vehicle in size, the small parcel was created before it was annexed into the city and the subdivided parcel is shallow in depth, 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA200003 – APPROVED Address: 1233 Zinnia Way Owner: Andy Gordon Petitioner: Zak George Landscaping Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The request is for a variance for a rear deck encroaching 4 feet 4 inches into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is on the south end of the neighborhood development, surrounded by a tract of land that is part of the HOA and their detention pond. There is an existing deck and the owner would like to extend it further out and into the rear yard setback. Behind the property there is a substantial amount of distance to any other residential building due to the HOA land and the detention pond. Applicant Presentation: Zach Villegas, Zak George Landscaping, addressed the board. There is currently a patio that has collapsed in on itself, they will be removing that structure and they are proposing a composite deck. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there will be any shade structure for the deck. Mr. Villegas confirmed there is currently a wood pergola over the existing patio. On the landscape plan it is noted at the bottom right, they will be extending what is currently there. It will be an open pergola, not a roof. Audience Participation: (none) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 13, 2020 Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton is in support of the variance, there is no visibility from the street and no impact that he can see. This would be a general improvement to the property. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed, creating variances for functional outdoor spaces supports our values as a community. Chair Shields made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair LaMastra, to approve ZBA200003 based on Section 2.10.2(H) for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the rear property line is not shared by another residential lot, and there is a 100 foot space between the proposed deck and any building to the south; 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 4. APPEAL ZBA200004 – APPROVED Address: 120 Buckeye St. Owner: Mike & Nora Carolan Petitioner: Bill Fraser Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7.(D)(3) and 4.7.E(3) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to re-build and expand an existing attached garage. The new garage addition will be 648 square feet and encroach 7 feet into the rear-yard setback and exceed the allowable floor area in the rear half by 446 square feet. The maximum floor area is 1312 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is an interesting corner lot, located where Buckeye Street dead ends into an alley. Just south of this is the CSU Perennial Garden and there is an office building across the alley with more commercial use facing College Ave. There is an existing garage that does encroach into the rear yard setback, this garage would be removed prior to building the new garage. Most properties along Remington face Remington, but this property faces Buckeye Street. The shared property line is a rear setback for the property owner and a side setback for the property to the north. The way the property is divided puts a portion of the primary house already into the rear half of the lot. The request is not to exceed the overall allowable floor area for the property, but to exceed what’s allowed in the rear half. The new garage would take access off the alley. There is an existing patio and gate that currently opens into the alley, therefore no change in condition. The existing garage is shallow, and the desire is to have a 2-car garage, hence extending the length of the garage. The design is to compliment the primary house. There is a connection between the primary house and the existing garage, that connection would remain. The property to the north is heavily landscaped with trees. Vice Chair LaMastra inquired about the existing driveway from Buckeye Street, Beals will let the owner speak to that. Applicant Presentation: Mike and Nora Carolan, 120 Buckeye Street, addressed the board. Their plan is to replace the existing gravel with grass and a sitting area. The existing garage structure is extremely short in height, it was built in the 50’s or 60’s and it’s an eyesore. The structure faces the annual garden and is visible to the many tourists that walk the gardens. Boardmember Lawton inquired as to the height of the garage versus the house. Ms. Carolan replied the height of the existing garage is much shorter, the opening is approximately 6 feet, the new proposal will be one story. The current garage only holds a sedan, nothing taller. Audience Participation: (none) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 13, 2020 Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated there are no shading issues for the neighbors, there is nothing controversial in this proposal. He is always in support of secure parking for vehicles. The project looks very nice, he is in support of the variance. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed this is conforming more to code to have access off the alley instead of the street and the architecture is a big improvement. She will be in full support. Boardmember Shuff is also in support, the rear yard setback could almost be considered a side yard setback, the encroachment in this case is not an issue. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200004 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the lot fronts onto Buckeye Street resulting in a shallow depth, the proposed floor area does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot, the new attached garage extends the length of the existing encroachment by 11 feet, and the abutting north property is required a 5 foot setback. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 5. APPEAL ZBA200005 – APPROVED Address: 926 W. Mulberry St. Owner: Stephanie Scott Petitioner: Anthony Baietti Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7.E(4) Project Description: This request is for a variance to build a porch encroaching approximately 3 feet into the required 15 foot street-side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner lot. The request is for a porch along the west side of the property. The applicant might be changing the addressing street to Gordon as opposed to Mulberry, but he will let the applicant speak to that. The porch is open with a railing and it is covered only near the door entry. The property line sits quite a distance from the curb and gutter and the setback is measured from the front property line. Boardmember McCoy asked why Gordon is the front of the property with the address of Mulberry. Beals clarified that currently the front door is off Mulberry, changing the front door does not change the setback along the side property line. The owners can request an address change to Gordon in the future. Chair Shields inquired if there is a sidewalk on Gordon, Beals stated there is not. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about any plans for street improvements in this area. Beals explained that would originate from the engineering department. In general, there are always plans to improve sidewalks throughout the city, especially a location across from a school, but he is not aware of any timing or specific plans. There is approximately 11 feet from curb and gutter to property line. Sidewalks are normally 4.5 feet in width, leaving space for a parkway whether the future sidewalk was attached or detached. Applicant Presentation: Anthony Baietti, general contractor, addressed the board. There is a deck that was just removed as part of other improvements to the house. They are upgrading the entire structure with small additions that do not encroach in any setbacks, replacing the detached garage, new siding and windows. Previously there was very little curb appeal and no indication where the entry way is located. The Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 13, 2020 owner did utilize the previous deck, which was about 12 feet deep and encroached further into the setback than this proposal of a deck at 6 feet deep. To avoid any setbacks the deck would only be 3 feet in depth and therefore not functional. Currently there is no sidewalk on Gordon, visitors park on Gordon, walk up an existing driveway to the back door. The owners already use this area for access, and they would like to make it more attractive. Mr. Baietti is unsure if their intent is to actually change the addressing street, this is more to improve upon the entrance that is most used. The existing driveway and curb cut go up to this backdoor. The new detached garage is where they will be parking moving forward. Part of the current improvement is to remove the driveway and repair the curb so that if there ever is a sidewalk laid in the future it will be continuous. Boardmember Lawton noticed the detached garage has stairs to the 2P nd P floor, inquired as to the purpose of that space. Mr. Baietti replied it is used as office space for the owner, but there is an affidavit signed by the owner saying it will not be used as a livable space. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff emphasized the presence of a previous deck with a larger footprint. There is enough room between the curb line and the property line to allow for future sidewalk improvements and taking off that existing driveway and curb cut will also improvement the pedestrian experience. Six feet in porch depth is a minimum to ensure it is usable. He also appreciates the intensity of Mulberry and the owner’s desire to create an entry off Gordon. He will be in support of this variance. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA200005 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.2(H), the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the porch is open on three sides, and there is 11 feet of landscape area from the property to the curb, 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 6. APPEAL ZBA200006 – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 1214 Mountain Home Dr. Owner: Gerald & Amy Esch Petitioner: John Baker Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 3.5.2(F) Project Description: This is a request for the garage to be forward of the front façade of the living area by 8 feet. The code requires street-facing garage doors to be recessed behind either the front façade of the ground floor living area or a covered front porch by at least 4 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is in the Lemay Avenue Estates subdivision, established in approximately 2006. At the beginning, construction was slow and now this is one of the last lots to be developed. This proposal is for a brand-new primary structure with a three-car garage, one with a taller bay, that will be placed 8 feet forward of the house. Code requires garage doors be recessed at least 4 feet behind a covered porch or a dwelling area of the house, or that the garage be side loaded. Of the neighboring lots, every garage is in compliance that has already built. There are grade changes on this property, and also on most of the neighboring properties in the cul-de-sac. Applicant Presentation: John Baker, Baker Western Group, addressed the board. Mr. Baker is the designer architect and general contractor for this project. This is a sizeable lot at 2/3 of an acre, however, it’s very sculpted. At about 32 feet from the street there is a very dramatic grade change with an 11-foot deep drop-off. The rest of the lot is on the lower elevation. They have created 5 different versions of the proposal trying to establish the best option. They discussed a side-loaded garage, but the 30-foot front setback places the garage doors right where the drop-off begins. The lot faces a dead end cul-de-sac on the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 13, 2020 front. Behind the lot is a detention pond, and most neighbors on the adjoining streets will view the back of the house, therefore increasing the importance of the rear of the lot. If they pushed the garage behind the setback, then that would create a large 20 foot wall, with the bottom 11 feet needed just to get to the floor of the garage. A sideload garage resulted in the same with a massive retaining wall to keep the driveway up at street grade. They tried to keep the front of the house as flush as possible with the garage, but it did not result in an appealing front aesthetic. They pushed the house back a little to have an undulation with the front of the house to create more interest. They did add some extra stone and high definition doors to the entry way. There is an architectural control board in the neighborhood and they have approved this plan. Also adding a natural stone landscape wall up front to create a courtyard beyond the garage. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the 20 foot wall, and if there is an option to terrace. Mr. Baker responded they are already proposing some stone walls that step down to offset the grade. Even with the current plan they will be trucking in a tremendous amount of dirt. To fill even more for driveway and garage would be more work and material. LaMastra asked about Mr. Beals comment that all the other homes in the area have complied with this standard. Mr. Baker disagreed, his observation is several other homes in the neighborhood have forward facing garages that are slightly recessed. The proposal does include one bay that has a 12x14 high door creating more scale to the front of the house and adding more dimensions. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this house is very similar to his own in layout and positioning. He questioned the main criteria for massing of garage doors up front. Beals and Stockover discussed the code reasoning for aesthetics with curb appeal and safety with less pedestrian/vehicle interaction. Shields added it was also to accentuate a front porch creating a community feel. Stockover stated this is a unique lot, they would need a lot of fill for the driveway to get this to street grade. He’s struggling to come up with a better option. It would be less massive to do a 2-car garage on the front. If the board draws a hard line on this variance, what would be built would not be as attractive as what is proposed. Boardmember Shuff emphasized that as a designer and architect they follow codes, not sure he understands the extent of the drop off without a topographic image. A 30-foot setback feels egregious in this case, but there is still concern over the garage relationship with the entry. There may be an opportunity to rotate the building to allow entry closer to street line. Codes are codes, he understands the grade issue, but maybe there is another way to look at this scenario. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she’s having a hard time accepting the challenges when there is not a visual representation of the site. Acknowledged the comments regarding the floor plan, but looking at the elevation, this is exactly what the code is trying to avoid. Even with the enhanced garage doors and stone, over half of the front façade of the house is garage that is sticking forward. Mr. Baker referred to the images submitted and pointed out where the highest grade and lowest grades are located. Vice Chair LaMastra explained they cannot see how the slope is changing, if there is any flatter area, or how does it go from one elevation to the next. Mr. Baker responded this area was built up and sculpted just for the cul-de-sac, the back half of the site was the original grade. The drop is very consistent and appears man made because it is too perfect. There is no spot to push the garage left or right for a natural plateau. Boardmember McCoy would be in support of this variance. The architectural control of the neighborhood approved this plan already. The setback of the house from the street is significant. Although he’s not a huge fan of garages out in the front, they did receive a neighbor letter with no opposition and there are no others here to oppose. At this point, we’re discussing design. Chair Shields stated the depth of the proposed driveway is substantial. However, he’s dealt with this code a number of times while building. There are many houses built in this city and he doesn’t recall ever seeing a variance like this, meaning every other house built since this code came into existence has been in compliance. He would have liked to see a more prominent front porch on the house, but they are tight on the 30-foot setback. The large setback and no opposition from neighbors would make him in support. Boardmember Lawton stated it’s hard to visualize the plan on the empty lot. There is unique nature of the topography, the drop off is significant and that is a hardship. He’s struggling with the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 13, 2020 neighborhood context as there does not appear to be any other primary structure that is as garage intensive. Two-thirds of the front of the house is garage doors. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the front architectural element almost intentionally disregards the front entrance. There is extra work being done everywhere else except the front entrance. More ornamentation is being given to the garage door than the front door. Boardmember Stockover agreed the front door seems plain and he does gravitate towards curb appeal. This is the last house on the block, the others are not garage forward, so it won’t be an entire street of garages. A more covered entry way would be better, but he’s in support of the variance. Continued board discussion regarding variances of this nature, the current code and the intent of the code. A different front porch would negate the prominent garage. Mr. Baker explained they are planning on a 3-foot stone natural wall, the whole front area will be flag stone creating a natural front patio with complete landscaping to create a courtyard feel. There will be a 4 foot planting bed between the garage and the front door, breaking up the solid wall. Vice Chair LaMastra disagreed, by setting back the front door and adding landscaping and walls, the entrance is more hidden. The point of the code is to push the front door out towards the street to provide a clear entrance. With this proposal you are still left with a massive façade of garages in the front. Mr. Baker countered the main intent of the front patio area is to provide a useable living space to engage with the neighborhood. Continued boardmember discussion proposing a different entryway and asking the applicant if they would consider an alternate entryway. Mr. Baker is not sure how to display a different entryway architecturally if they are referring to the landscaping. Further board discussion on possible entryways or removing part of the garage. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA200006 for the following reasons: pursuant to 2.10.2(H)(1)&(2) the Board finds that Granting the variance is not detrimental to the public good nor does it authorize any change in use other than the use that is allowed subject to basic development review and: As stated in subsection 2.10.2 (H) (1) should be approved by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to the property as described by the architect/general contractor based on the topography. There is not a well- defined topo attached, but it’s clear by the drawings that it is a clear drop off to the open space behind. Further, based on the statements of the architect regarding the front area landscaping the Board also finds that the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested will be equally well or better promote the general purpose of the standard pursuant to subsection 2.10.2(H)(2). This Board also notes that the HOA Architectural Review Board of the neighborhood has approved this design. The board further finds that strict compliance to the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or undue hardship upon the occupant of the property – and these hardships were not caused by the act or omission of the occupant. Boardmember McCoy added this development and these large lots do not exist in Fort Collins anymore, which is why we don’t usually see variances like this. Chair Shields emphasized the code intent for a front porch to be a prominent part of architectural design. He is not currently in support of this variance but considers it a fair compromise to request a covered front porch on this house. Gerald and Amy Esch, owners of the property, addressed the board per the board’s request. They have no intent of violating code, they would like a nice home with nice aesthetics. This proposal is the result of many iterations trying to fit within Lemay Avenue Estates HOA requirements. When they applied, they pointed out the garage doors are too far forward and that forced the applicant to meet with the HOA board. The HOA board and the owners gathered at the lot and discussed many possible solutions to fit a ranch house on this lot without a floating garage pushed back over the drop off. Neighbors agreed this proposal would be the best option. They granted an exception to have the garage doors on the front, on the condition that they add a wall in the front to create a patio courtyard. Board discussion regarding an amendment and the approval of the courtyard by the HOA. Vice Chair LaMastra supported the stone wall being in the same stone as the house. Reviewed the document from the HOA. Board also discussed the possibility of a sidewalk going toward the front door to help define the entry. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 February 13, 2020 Friendly amendment added to the motion from Stockover, seconded by McCoy, supporting the Lemay Avenue Estates Architectural Review Board document dated 10/15/19 and ensuring the stone used in the patio wall is the same stone as the home. Yeas: Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Lawton, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. • OTHER BUSINESS In accordance with the City’s movement to be as paperless as possible, this board will be moving to electronic packets starting next month. • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 12, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1105 Hillcrest Dr. Petitioner/Owner: Kai Kleer Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Variance Request: This is a request for a shed to encroach 2 feet into the required 5 foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was platted and annexed into the City in 1959 as part of the Miller Brothers’ Foothills Subdivision, Fifth Filing. The primary structure was built approximately in 1965. The primary structure is a ranch style house with an attached single car garage. The property to the north has an accessory building along the share property line and appears also to encroach into the side setback. The proposed accessory structure on the subject property would align with this neighboring accessory building. Accessory structures are required to obtain a building permit when they exceed 120 square feet in size or 8 feet in height. The proposed structure is 120 square feet in size and is 11.25 feet in height at its tallest point. The side that face the north property line is 8.63 feet in height. In general setback requirements are to promote and preserve the character of the neighborhood and ensure safety and privacy. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The proposed shed faces a neighboring accessory building • The proposed structure is 8.63 feet in height along the north property line • The proposed encroachment is 12 feet in length along the 110 foot north property line. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200007. 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 __________________________________________ 1105 Hillcrest Drive – Shed Setback Variance Request This is a request for variance from the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code standard 4.4(D)(2)(d). Standard The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Standard 4.4(D)(2)(d) states, “For residential uses, the minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot and five (5) feet for all interior side yards. For all other uses, the minimum side yard width shall be the equivalent of one (1) foot for each three (3) feet or fraction thereof of building height, provided that for school or church uses no side yard shall be less than twenty-five (25) feet wide.” Justification Detrimental to the Public Good According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2019), the word “detriment” means, “Loss or damage done or caused to, or sustained by, any person or thing, while the noun “public good” means, “the welfare of the community as a whole, public interest.” The requested 2-foot variance from the required 5-foot setback will in no way result in any damage to the welfare of the community as a whole. Nominal and Inconsequential 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. Because of the erratic setbacks contained within the existing built environment of the neighborhood, a variance from the setback standard would be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the area. Through a sample of properties within 500 feet of the subject property the following was found: Address Approximate Shed Size Approximate Side-Yard Setback Image 1024 Ponderosa Dr 168 square feet 3 feet 1033 Hillcrest Dr 360 square feet 3 feet 1040 Briarwood Rd 60 square feet 1 foot Address Approximate Shed Size Approximate Side-Yard Setback Image 1052 Briarwood Rd 150 square feet 175 square feet 13 feet 8 feet 1064 Briarwood 175 square feet 17 feet 1101 Hillcrest 208 Square Feet 6 inches Address Approximate Shed Size Approximate Side-Yard Setback Image 1117 Hillcrest Dr 139 square feet 6 feet 1201 Hillcrest Drive 432 square feet 4 feet 2212 Clearview 115 square feet 1 foot or less Address Approximate Shed Size Approximate Side-Yard Setback Image 2216 Clearview Avenue 150 square feet 1 foot or less 2225 Clearview Avenue 220 square feet 13 feet Address Approximate Shed Size Approximate Side-Yard Setback Image 2408 Crabtree Dr 220 square feet 0 feet 2408 Tamarac 176 square feet 2 feet 2417 Tanarac Dr 161 square feet 0 feet Address Approximate Shed Size Approximate Side-Yard Setback Image 2428 Crabtree Dr 220 square feet 0 feet Please note that all measurements are approximate and were taken using aerial photography and an overlay of property boundaries. Citations "detriment, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2019. Web. 7 February 2020. "public good, adj. and n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2019. Web. 7 February 2020. 1105 Hillcrest Drive - Shed 1 2 3 4 5 REVISIONS REMARKS MM/DD/YY ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ 02 /03/2020 Plan Set 01 A Site Plan 15'-0" 3'-0" Proposed Shed 120 sq. ft. Existing House 12'-0" 10'-0" Existing Spruce Existing Silver Maple Driveway Sidewalk Edge of ROW 6' Utility Easement Hillcrest Drive Centerline 10' Utility Easement Property Line 110' Property Line 67' 1105 Hillcrest Drive - Shed 1 2 3 4 5 REVISIONS REMARKS MM/DD/YY ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ ... _ _ /_ _ /_ _ 02 /03/2020 Plan Set 02 A Floor Plan Floor Framing Plan Wall Section 6"x6" Treated Wood Skid 2"x6" Floor Joist @ 24" O.C. 2"x4" Wall Framing @ 24" O.C. 2"x8" Rafter @ 24" O.C. Corrugated Steel Roof 30# Felt Underlayment 7/16" OSB Roof Decking 6'-0" 1'-4" 12'-0" 10'-0" 36" Door 3/4" Toung and Groove OSB Floor Decking Four Corners Anchored to Ground 1'-3/4" Gravel Base to Top of Floor Decking Skids to Sit on 2" of Gravel and 10 Mil Vapor Barrier Floor & Elevation Plan 11' Grade to Top of Roof 8' 9" Grade to Top of Roof Larimer County Web Map - 500 foot buffer This map was created by Larimer County GIS using data from multiple sources for informal purposes only. This map may not reflect recent updates prior to the date of printing. Larimer County makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the Date Prepared: 2/7/2020 4:39:32 PM completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented. 0.0 0.0 Miles 2,400 0 Legend 1: Notes Scale Addresses Subdivisions Tax Parcels Recorded Dimensions PLSS Township and Range PLSS Sections PLSS Quarter Sections Railroads Major Road System Road System Lakes and Ponds Major Rivers and Streams Rivers and Streams County Boundary Rocky Mountain National Park Incorporated Areas City or Town County State Federal Other Agenda Item 2 Item #2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 12, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 714 W. Mountain Ave. Owner: Hanke Thode Petitioner: High Craft Builders Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)2.; 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(D)(6); 4.7(E)(3) Variance Request: This request proposes an expansion of an existing accessory building and requires four variances. The first variance is to exceed the overall floor area allowance for the lot by 1065 square feet. The second variance is to exceed the rear half floor area allowance by 280.25 square feet. The third variance is to exceed the allowable floor area of an accessory building by 726 square feet, where the max floor area is 600 square feet. The fourth variance is to encroach 4 feet 8 inches into the required 5 foot rear-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property platted and annexed into the City in 1887. The original primary structure was built in 1907. A couple years later the accessory structure was built. In 1986 the carport addition to the accessory building was added. In 2015 the property received a Landmark Designation adopted by ordinance of the City Council. The existing accessory structure exceeds at least three of the four Land Use Code standards that the addition is proposing a variance from. • Existing overall lot floor area exceeds by 765 square feet • Existing floor area for an accessory building exceeds by 426 plus any of the 2P nd P floor that has a ceiling height of 7.5’ • Existing encroachment into the required 5 foot rear-yard setback is 4.67 feet In Landmark Preservation Commission review of the proposed changes, Historic Preservation staff made the following evaluation of the carport: Remove non-historic (c.1988) roof awning over trash bin area. • Staff review: This feature does not appear to be historic, nor is the addition of the carport itself. Removal appears consistent with the Standards. In general floor area and setback requirements are to promote and preserve the character of the neighborhood and ensure safety and privacy. 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 request would over double the allowable floor area for an accessory building and would not be nominal and inconsequential. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property, as other designs could reduce the size of the accessory building and the property is a similar lot size as the Agenda Item 2 Item #2 - Page 2 other neighboring properties. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA200008. 714 West Mountain Ave. Variance Request Explanation This variance request seeks modifications to Fort Collins NCL district standards to allow for the rehabilitation of a historic carriage house, landmarked in Fort Collins, as a functional two car garage. As a note, ‘carriage house’ is used in the historical sense - the structure is an accessory building without habitable space. The plans included in this request have been reviewed and approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. The following square footage areas will be relevant in reviewing this request: House: Existing House Area: 2,662.2 Accessory: Existing Carriage House: 432* Existing Carport: 594 Proposed Garage Addition: 300 Total Existing Accessory Building Area: 1026 Total Proposed Accessory Building Area: 1326 * includes first floor footprint only - collar ties will be retrofitted in the loft to shore the roof, lowering the entire ceiling to under 7’-6”. The following modifications to standards are requested: ● Exceeding the lot maximum FAR: Per LUC 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2), 2,673.2 square feet are allowable on this 8,366 square foot lot. With the 250 square foot detached accessory bonus applied, floor area is currently 765 square feet over allowable, and is proposed to be 1,065 square feet over allowable. ● Exceeding lot rear half FAR: Per LUC 4.7(D)(3), 1045.75 square feet are allowable in the rear half of the lot. The proposed area would be 280.25 square feet over allowable. ● Exceeding accessory building square footage limitation: Per LUC 4.7(D)(6), accessory buildings without habitable space are limited to 600 square feet in area. The existing building is 426 square feet over allowable, and the proposed building is 726 square feet over allowable. ● Exceeding rear-alley setback: Per LUC 4.7(E)(3), a 5’ setback is required. The existing carriage house has a 0’ setback, and the proposed setback of the addition is 0’-4”. Project Description: The homeowner initially approached this project with the goal of reworking the existing carriage house to allow it to be used as a two-car garage. Although the homeowner had landmarked the property in 2015, to their knowledge the carriage house had been excluded from the designation. This building is 17’-4” wide inside, and has a 15’-6” wide opening, facing South toward the driveway from Mountain, currently closed off by a set of bypassing barn doors. When opened, these doors leave a clear width of 7’-7” on either side. Our initial approach to achieve the desired improvement was to propose a 4’ wide addition to the lower level of the building to widen the garage space to 21’-4”, as well as a new, 16’ overhead garage door opening, slightly shifted to better center in the space. This option would have added a more modest 96 square feet to the building while meeting the homeowner’s needs. This design has been included in the attached plans for reference. Upon finding out that the carriage house had actually been included in the property’s landmark designation, we began working with Historic Preservation staff in preparation for submitting options for review to the LPC. While standards for rehabilitation allow for modifications that enable a compatible contemporary use of a building, significant historic features of the building must be preserved. Construction of a new, separate garage building in the Northwest corner of the lot was an initial recommendation by staff. However, the homeowner desired the simplicity and functionality of having the garage under one roof in one building. We therefore approached the proposal as an addition, that would be reversible, compatible, and would not remove any historically significant features of the carriage house. The two buildings would be connected only by a new, interior doorway between two existing historic windows on the West side of the carriage house. While the garage addition was a central aspect of the proposal brought to the LPC, an equally important one was a request to allow for an overhead garage door to be installed in the South facing barn door opening. While the LPC did approve installation of a garage door in an existing, abandoned, 8’-10” wide opening off the alley, it determined that the front facing barn doors were significant to the building and must be kept. Given the lack of setback from the alley, the new overhead door granted by the LPC will be challenging to maneuver through. As noted, the barn doors leave a narrow clear opening to either side, pressed tight to the side walls of the garage. These doors are large and heavy, and will be difficult for the aging homeowner to move. Power barn door openers exist, but are uncommon and are not installed or serviced by any local vendors. To summarize, required preservation requirements will make the carriage house difficult to use for parking by the aging homeowner, especially for coming and going on a frequent basis. By contrast, the garage addition is lined up close enough to a perpendicular approach from a North-South branch of the alley that it will be significantly easier to maneuver in and out of. This difference is reflected in an aerial view and photograph provided with this explanation. While the homeowner approached the project with the goal of creating a functional two-car garage, this proposal accomplishes two indoor parking spaces, one relatively easy to use, as well as preservation of the carriage house. Justification Criteria 1 – By reason of exceptional physical condition or situation unique to the property, the strict application of the code requirements would result in undue hardship: While the decision to landmark a property could be interpreted as a self-imposed hardship, it is important to acknowledge homeowners that do so for their contribution to the city, and to understand their difficulty in foreseeing the full ramifications of the decision. Given the specific preservation limitations described above, a clear hardship exists for the use of the structure for indoor parking, and the extent of this hardship was not fully knowable for the homeowner until completion of historic design review. By limiting use of the carriage house, as well as possibility of a smaller but more invasive addition, the burden of preserving the carriage house justifies what is a modest request, in the context of the property as a whole, for relief from lot and building floor area limitations to add a 300 square foot garage addition off the carriage house structure. The presence of the carport, and it’s impact on requested floor area variances could also be seen as a self-imposed hardship. However, the carport was built in the 80’s, and the LUC has only classified carports as floor area since 2018. Impact of the carport could not have been foreseeable even at the time of landmark designation in 2015. More importantly, the central rationale for the differentiation of carports as open covered spaces that count as floor area, versus all other open covered spaces that do not count, is their history of being surreptitiously infilled over time to create enclosed garages. In this unique case, although the carport would be accepted as floor area by this variance, any infilling of the structure would require historic preservation approval, which would be out of the question. Given the currently approved addition, it’s virtually impossible that historic preservation staff or the LPC would support what would essentially be a second, much larger and more impactful addition to the front of the building. Classification of the carport, which could never conceivably be enclosed, as floor area just in case it were enclosed, actually imposes a hardship in itself on the homeowner by inflating square footages by 594 square feet to reflect the potentiality of an enclosed section of building that will never exist. The requested setback variance for the garage addition is made necessary by the presence of a large spruce tree to its South. An assessment of the addition in relation to the tree has been conducted (see attached document), and while the outlook is positive for the current location, it can be moved no closer to the tree without risking the tree’s health. The addition has been limited to a 19’-4” interior depth, which is on the shallow side for a garage. Justification Criteria 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: If the carport were treated as a similar open covered space that would not be filled in, and therefore not be counted as floor area, proposed rear floor area would be 314 square feet under allowable. While variances for lot FAR and accessory building size would not be eliminated, they would be reduced to 471 square feet and 132 square feet respectively. Justification Criteria 3 - Proposal will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood: Requested variances related to both floor area and setback of the proposed addition would be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the block, alley, and view of the property from Mountain Ave. Multiple structures of similar or greater bulk to the proposed expanded carriage house exist along the alley in its immediate vicinity. These structures include a large rear addition and large three car garage at 119 N. Loomis, a carriage house with extending carport and second floor deck at 116 N. Grant, a carriage house at 704 W. Mountain, a carriage house at 718 W. Mountain, and a carriage house at 128 N. Grant. Considering the massing of the proposed structure, as well as limitation on the carport ever being filled in, it would not feel out of scale in relation to surrounding structures. As viewed from Mountain Ave., the proposed addition would be secondary to the existing construction and would be almost entirely obscured by the spruce to its south. In terms of lot FAR, the proposed increased overage represented by the small garage addition is nominal in relation to the variety lot arrangements, coverages, and structure sizes existing in the vicinity. Lastly, the non-conforming alley setback of the carriage house and proposed addition is consistent with buildings of similar or greater frontage that exist in the majority of lots along the south side of the alley, most of which also have a zero setback. FLOOR PLAN NOTES ',0(16,216$5(72)$&(2)6758&785$/(/(0(17 678'6&21&5(7(:$//6 (7& 127( 6&+('8/($5($6$5(,17(1'(')25(67,0$7,1*385326(621/<$1' 0$<127$&&85$7(/<5()/(&7$&78$/&21',7,216 ,17+(),(/' 7*$5$*(6/$% 7 (1 :02817$,1$9( (;,67,1*7:26725<5(6,'(1&( (;,67,1*&$55,$*( +286( (;,67,1*&$53257 02817$,1$9(18( 50.00' 167.50' 167.50' 50.00' 352326('*$5$*( $'',7,21 $//(< (;,67,1*%/8( 6358&( 5(4 '6,'(6(7%$&. 5(4 '5($5 6(7%$&. 5(4 ')52176% 5(4 '6,'(6(7%$&. 6+2:(6675((7 )257&2//,16&2 '5$:1 &+(&.(' 127)25&216758&7,21 '$7( 127)25&216758&7,21 6&$/(&+(&. A GARAGE FOR: 714 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, 80521 $ 0+-* HANK THODE VARIANCE 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 83 83 *$5$*('225 6+2:(6675((7 )257&2//,16&2 '5$:1 &+(&.(' 127)25&216758&7,21 '$7( 127)25&216758&7,21 6&$/(&+(&. A NEW GARAGE FOR: 714 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, 80521 $ 0+-* HANK THODE IDR ADDITION 1/8" = 1'-0" (E) 1F PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" (N) 1F PLAN Date: 01/13/2020 Subject: Spruce Tree at 714 W Mountain Ave To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to discuss the future construction/addition of the barn in the back of the lot at 714 W Mountain Ave, and specifically what effect this will have on the large existing Spruce tree. This tree is important to the homeowner, and following certain guidelines will give the Spruce a high rate of surviving the construction process. The plans show digging up to, but not into the critical root zone of the tree. Impact will only occur on one side of the tree, which means only 25% of the root zone will be somewhat compromised. Roots inside the drip line will be damaged, so the following steps are recommended to ensure the tree has the best chance to overcome the stress. 1) Protect areas that will not be excavated with fencing. This will decrease compaction, and unintended damage within areas that no digging is taking place. 2) Deep root water tree, starting before, during and after construction. This can be done via hose once a month with 150 gallons (process has been explained to homeowner). 3) Root prune tree in areas where root damage is imminent. This allows for less decay and compartmentalization of damage within the root. 4) Treat tree with Cambistat growth regulator. This helps construction damaged trees to develop fine root hairs and overcome stress. Following the above steps should help the tree get through the process in good health. It is reasonable to believe with the added care, the tree can add value to the property for many years to come. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Josh Fine Degreed in Arboriculture ISA Certified Arborist 3058 Lake Canal Ct., Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Tel 970-377-2851 Fax 970-498-8735 Deal with a professional arborist and a reputable company. 116 N. GRANT AVE. ACCESSORY 116 N. GRANT AVE. ACCESSORY 119 N. LOOMIS AVE. ACCESSORY 704 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. ACCESSORY/ 119 N. LOOMIS REAR ADDITION 128 N. GRANT AVE. ACCESSORY 718 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. ACCESSORY ALLEY ACCESS AERIAL ALLEY ACCESS AERIAL BLOCK AERIAL Agenda Item 3 Item #3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 12, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200009 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 144 2P nd P Street Owner/Petitioner: Michael Rossman Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 4.4(D)(2)(e) Variance Request: This is a request to remove the existing house and accessory structure and to build a new house and accessory structure. This request requires three variances. The first variance is to allow the new house to encroach 7 feet into the 15 foot street side-yard setback along Logan Ave. The second variance is to allow a new garage to encroach 2 feet into the 15 foot street side-yard setback along Logan Ave. The third variance is to allow the new house to be 33 feet in height, the require maximum height is 28 feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annexed into the City in 1903 as part of the Buckingham Place subdivision The primary structure was constructed approximately in 1930. The original lot size has remained intact through the present. The existing structures on the property do not meet the current setback standards. The proposed setbacks for the new structure are compliant except for along the street-side setback for both the house and garage. The existing buildings are one-story and meet the current height standards for the zone district. The proposed primary building exceeds the current height limitation. The existing garage takes vehicle access from the street. The proposed garages changes the access with a driveway design from the alley. The property line is 10 feet back from the sidewalk. This gives the perception that the existing primary is meeting a 15 foot setback from the sidewalk. In general building height and setback requirements are to promote and preserve the character of the neighborhood and ensure safety and privacy. 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 encroachment of 7 feet for the primary house and 2 feet for the accessory building into the 15 foot required street side-yard setback and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The 10 foot parkway gives additional setback of the building from the public sidewalk. • Throughout the Buckingham Place neighborhood similar encroachments occur. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. Agenda Item 3 Item #3 - Page 2 Further, under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denial of an increase of allowable building height and finds that: • Throughout the neighborhood there are a majority of single-story buildings and within this context an increase of height for a two-story building would not be nominal and inconsequential. • 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 a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval for two of the three variance requests of APPEAL ZBA200009. 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 __________________________________________ If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted Zoning Board Members, First, I appreciate your time and consideration with our request. Currently we are wanting to build a new house on our lot to replace house currently in place, and demo the garage that was built illegally before we bought the house and rebuild a legal garage on the back alley. The house on the lot now, the house directly across the street, and the house behind us are built over the street-side setbacks and have been there since the 1930s. In addition, the house directly next to us is built well over current setbacks for the front of the house. As for the garage, both the houses directly east and west of me have garages that are built in the current setback. For our proposal, we will actually be pushing the house back off of the front setback to 10 feet instead of the current 4 feet, and moving to 8 feet off of the street-side instead of the current 5 feet from the current house placement. For the garage, we will meet both neighboring side and alley setbacks and only nominally imposing on the street-side setback by a little over 2 feet, which is well within the setbacks of the garages on either side (east and west) of us currently. In addition to the setbacks, we are asking for an increase in the height allowance for the area. Currently the requirement is 28’. We are asking for an increase to 33’. There are a couple houses that have been built new in the neighborhood that are 2 stories. These houses will likely become the norm as the area starts to develop. We are building our house with a modern farmhouse / craftsman feel and in order to have the roof pitch stay concurrent with the style we would like to have a couple extra feet to work with. In the context of the neighborhood we would actually be improving current setbacks both of existing house/garage and comparatively to the surrounding houses/garages. In addition we are doing our best to remedy the garage that was illegally built before we bought the property, by tearing it down and building it right and with the cities approval. As far as the height requirement / style there is currently a house on 3rd street in the same style and there are 2 other houses being built in the neighborhood that are 2 stories and will likely be the norm as the area develops. We hope that you will consider this under the justification of nominal and inconsequential. In order to build our dream home and garage design we need a little more width than the current street side and front setbacks, and height will allow. Also to have a big enough back yard for our 3 dogs and future children we would back up the house from its current location and stay in contextual setback, but not the full 20' as that wouldn't allow us much of a backyard at all. Again, we certainly appreciate you for your time and consideration. Thank you! Michael and Melanee Rossman A D V N C E S I G . P R O F L T M H , B U Y W K / & Q A D V N C E S I G . P R O F L T M H , B U Y W K / & Q A D V N C E S I G . P R O F L T M H , B U Y W K / & Q A D V N C E S I G . P R O F L T M H , B U Y W K / & Q From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 144 2nd street Date: Thursday, March 5, 2020 3:28:16 PM Attachments: image001.png From: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 2:38 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: 144 2nd street Thanks Noah, Per our chat just now, Historic Preservation doesn’t have authority to review this if they’re keeping this single-family, but it is an area of concern for us because of the important connections of Tres Colonias to Fort Collins’ German American heritage, Mexican American heritage, and civil rights history. At this time, only the Romero House (city-owned property) at 425 10th and the Maneval property at 100 1st are actually Landmarked. We do have a general context on Fort Collins’ Latinx community published back in 2003 on our website, here. More directly relevant for this ZBA request would be the 2004 survey of Tres Colonias, online here. In the 2004 survey, the 144 2nd Street property was considered contributing to a potential historic district for the Buckingham neighborhood (see page 34), although it was not recommended for individual Landmark status. Buckingham was also found to have the best historic integrity of the three neighborhoods at the time. For a general statement, this might work: The Buckingham, Andersonville, and Alta Vista neighborhoods are areas of significant historic interest and candidates for preservation due to the neighborhoods’ association not only with the sugar beet industry in Fort Collins, but also for its association with the city’s history of ethnic groups, specifically Germans from Russia and Mexican Americans. These neighborhoods housed the labor supply for the nearby Great Western Sugar factory and sugar beet fields. As of the last historic survey for the neighborhood, all three neighborhoods are, in whole or in part, eligible to be both City Landmark Districts and listed in the National Register of Historic Places. To that end, it is strongly encouraged that contributing buildings to those potential districts be retained. Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks for checking in! JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 1:32 PM To: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Subject: 144 2nd street Jim, FYI, we have this coming to ZBA next week as well (see attached). Thanks, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 Jon Sargent 201 2nd Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 March 10, 2020 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Appeal ZBA200009 Regarding 144 2nd Street To the Zoning Board of Appeals: I am writing to express my deep concern over the requested variances for the proposed development at 144 2nd Street in our neighborhood of Buckingham. I have heard from a number of other surrounding neighbors regarding these proposed variances, and the response has been uniformly and passionately against approving them. The demolition of a historic home within the tight-knit community is one thing, but the potentially dangerous precedent set by an oversized, and out-of-place, new structure would in my opinion add insult to injury. With all three of the requested variances, I do not see a compelling argument of undue hardship that would require any of these to be approved. I understand that the lots in the Buckingham neighborhood are narrow, and thus do not allow for the same development freedom of a code-compliant lot found elsewhere in the city. This is part of what gives our neighborhood its character, as a potential local historic district, and it is a restriction that all of us who purchased homes there were aware of upon purchasing. Many property owners in Buckingham have successfully expanded upon existing structures, relocated buildings to the neighborhood, or built new and still maintained the necessary setbacks. The built environment in the neighborhood is just as much a part of the community as the people are, and these setbacks were established to respect the layout of the neighborhood. The most critical variance, and one that has garnered the most attention amongst my concerned neighbors is the requested height of building variance. To my knowledge, the requested variance would make this structure the tallest in the neighborhood and almost twice as high as the vast majority of homes in the community. In my opinion, the allowable 28’ height is more than enough to accomplish a well-designed two story house. Pursuing additional height will negatively affect all of the surrounding properties. Similar to the setbacks, these conditions are self-imposed by the owner of the property by their decision to demolish the existing structure and rebuild. I have to believe that much thought went into the current regulations that establish both building height and setbacks in the Buckingham community. To provide exceptions to these regulations and approve these variances will be setting a very dangerous precedent. As the neighborhood grapples with ongoing gentrification and a drastic reduction in its diversity, both racial and economic, this would be a major blow to the community and the city as a whole. The availability of affordable housing and preservation of diverse blue-collar communities within town is something that the City must value and stand up for. As economic pressures beyond most of our control continue to erode these communities, the City can do one thing now to protect them, by supporting the existing zoning regulations. The new owners of 144 2nd Street have pointed to a few new houses on 3rd Street as justification for their proposed height, and point to these as indicative of future development in the neighborhood. For those that have walked or driven through our neighborhood, it’s immediately evident that these new houses on 3rd Street drastically stand in stark contrast to most other homes in the neighborhood. Let alone the humble home to the north, which houses long-term community members, and is now permanently cast in shadow. To my knowledge, as out-of-place as these structures are compared to the neighboring homes, they are not as tall as the proposed home at 144 2nd Street. As far as the future development of the neighborhood is concerned, the applicant’s statement indicates that the history of the neighborhood will be wiped clean in favor of similar large two-story homes. Large homes, that as we all know preclude people of certain tax brackets. This may be the path that Buckingham is being pushed towards, but it most certainly is not Buckingham as it exists today. For some, this may represent just another hearing. For the owners of 144 2nd Street, I understand that this carries a lot more weight in determining the future of their new home. I respect that and I look forward to welcoming them into our community when they move in. But for me personally, this proposal strikes very close to home, both in terms of proximity and what it represents for our community. As I currently work towards getting the Tres Colonias neighborhoods designated as a local historic district, and as I witness the deepening divide between long-time residents of the neighborhood and newcomers, I ask that the City stand behind our neighborhood as a valuable asset to the City. We may stand powerless to the demolition of one of our historic homes, but we ask that you do your part to uphold the existing zoning regulations and reject the proposed variances. Thank you. Sincerely, Jon Sargent From: "palomojef@gmail.com" <palomojef@gmail.com> Date: March 9, 2020 at 12:02:27 PM MDT To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Appeal ZBA200009 - 144 2nd Street Dear Administrator, I own the property right next door, 140 2nd Street. I am a big proponent of Mr. Michael Rossman’s investment into his property and generally speaking every neighbor for that matter. The variances requested by Mr. Rossman seem completely prudent. I support and would encourage and appreciate you and your staff approving. Questions or needs of me, I can be reached at 720-560-1832. Regards, Jeff Palomo Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, I am a resident at 201 2nd St in the Buckingham Neighborhood of Fort Collins. I have lived in Buckingham for five years, and from day one have been struck by the unique sense of community and comradery in the neighborhood. There is an approachable, comfortable physical scale to the neighborhood as well as a close-knit family environment: we all know each other by name, and it’s not uncommon to see children playing in the street after school. Fort Collins has always made a concerted effort to maintain its sense of history and allow neighborhoods to create and maintain their own unique identity. Unfortunately, not many ties remain to the historic sugar beet industry in the city. Most of the houses in Buckingham were originally used for sugar beet factory workers and their families, and therefore provide a special connection to a major defining era in our city’s history. Yes, the houses and lots are small compared to most neighborhoods, but that’s a big part of what ties us together and helps us sustain a sense of place in the midst of such rampant development on all sides. This livability is the primary reason many of us have chosen to put down permanent roots in Buckingham. We are proud that our neighborhood is unlike any other in the city. I am concerned about the proposed scrape and build at 144 2nd Street for many reasons. I understand that there is currently no protection in place for historic structures in Buckingham, and that a property owner has the right to scrape the existing home and garage if they so choose. My concern lies in what type of structure will replace those existing-will it fit the scale of the neighborhood, will it cast shade over neighboring lots, and most importantly: what kind of precedent does it set for the future of this very special place? According to Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. When looking at these variance requests, I urge you to include not only the existing neighborhood, but future residents of Buckingham in your definition of “public.” While the new structure might not have an immediate effect on a resident down the block, it certainly will impact whether or not Buckingham is able to maintain its livability within the overall fabric of Fort Collins. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals must find that the variance request meets at least one justification reason. The applicant has decided that the justification they seek is: 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. As the applicants stated, the existing home at 144 2nd St might very well lie over the setbacks prescribed by the Land Use Code. However, that home was built in 1930 which was before today’s modern setbacks were decided upon. If an existing structure is nonconforming, then once it’s torn down the new structure must fit within current standards. These standards were not arbitrarily decided upon-they’re in place to support mindful development and to help property owners maintain the livability of their neighborhoods. Even if the design of the replacement house is “more conforming” than the existing house, due to its increased footprint size it will appear more obtrusive and therefore less conforming when considered in the context of the neighborhood. I would also like to point out that citing existing non-conformities within the neighborhood is not a viable reason to continue to allow them: the existing homes, just like 144 2nd St, were constructed prior to setbacks being put in place. If they are ever remodeled or scraped, the homeowners will be held accountable to meeting the same land use standards as these applicants should be today. Approving the setback variance requests would set a dangerous precedent for the entire city that the mere challenge of a small lot means that more conforming is a viable option, rather than actually conforming. In terms of the requested variance to the 28’ building height restriction: a 5’ increase to building height is substantial and consequential in the context of a neighborhood where most homes are single-story and around 15’ high. True, in the last few years several homes have been constructed or remodeled to include a second story. None of these homes exceed 28’ in height. 144 2nd St is smack-dab in the middle of the neighborhood-you’d be able to see the second story of this home from any property in Buckingham, and likely from the neighboring city park and breweries. It is my opinion that a two-story home can easily comply with a 28’ height limit-in fact, the applicants themselves state that they request the height variance merely to achieve a particular building style (one that is not typical in the current context of the neighborhood). This is a self-imposed hardship and should not be considered to meet any of the three justification criteria. Furthermore, two of the new two-story houses referenced by the applicant have dramatically affected the property directly to the north by blocking its sun exposure almost around the clock. If a building located on the outskirts of the neighborhood which complies with the height restriction has that kind of negative impact, then I am vehemently opposed to a building exceeding the height restriction by 5’ being built in a more central location. I closely identify with the applicants’ dream of building their perfect home and raising their family in Buckingham. My husband and I are also in the midst of remodeling our home and are expecting our first child. It seems that the applicants and I share the dream of raising our children in a highly livable area with a deep sense of community. However, there are ways to achieve that dream without substantially- and, in my view, negatively-impacting the very fabric of Buckingham that makes it so special. As you, the Zoning Board of Fort Collins, make your decision today please consider the long-term impacts of this proposal. Be mindful of the precedent you may set: that if a “dream home” is limited by a small lot size then the well-thought-out and intentional City regulations don’t matter. Imagine how that could impact zoning code enforcement ten or twenty years down the road in the context of the entire city. But most importantly, please keep the people who live in Buckingham today (many of whom were born and raised in the neighborhood), and love it specifically for its distinctly small-scale, approachable, and historic character at the forefront of your minds. Thank you for your time and consideration, Sienna Fry Agenda Item 4 Item #4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 12, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 819 Locust Court Owner: Laurene Rogers Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(2), 4.7(E)(4) Variance Request: This request is to encroach 4 feet into the required 15 foot front and street side setbacks. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was a part of the original town plat of 1873. It later was replatted as part of the Falk Seaburg subdivision in 1976. The original structure was built in 1977 meeting the current setbacks. Across the street to the east is the Laurel Elementary school. The proposed location of the addition is currently a landscaped area of the property. This landscaping includes turf, shrubs, a short split-rail fence and a tree. 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 with the condition the City Engineer verifies the addition does not increase any safety concern for the intersection and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public, provided the condition is met. • The encroachment includes 17 square feet of floor area. • The proposed addition is within the allowable floor area. • A tree exists in the same location as the proposed addition. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA200010. =."( =# !T;FE0:!E.! /"-£lwqrr¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤r klmnlopqrsttmquu! nw! nr oqmyz{xtqrqpwnxou! xonornuwmnpw! uwnnplwnxou! uwnnplwnxour uwnnplwnxour qluxonor ! ÜÝÞßàáÞâßàãäåÞæààçèÞ éêêëáëàßéìÞíæëááâßÞ ëßÝàæçéáëàßÞçéîÞ ïâÞðãïçëááâê ## 012 'R .! BJD880;B1D880;BCDE:,<.xtq! ' $' ,EEU<)% #.868:88:= ;' ?'( F6E3 = F808:6.=|}000;#' #( ~! 0.# &=.* '( ?*0. + Ä²Ó°¬Â°Ô¨¦¦Ú¨»¹»¹ ?# ;' 880-,%LA1dde/P VWXYXYZ[' ) ' + Ö³®¶³Á¨®¶²¨Â°²Â¨Â°²¨»¹×¨ª°¨Å²¿¨¨ ÐªÏ³ÁÂÅ¨Í¨³Á«ªÁ²Ø¬²Á®³ÂÅÈ®¶²¨Ò°ªÒª²´¨Â´´³®³ªÁ¨°²¬Å®¨³Á¨ªÁÅÔ¨¦½¨µÄ¨ª·¨Â°²Â¨Ö³®¶³Á¨®¶²¨ °²Ø¬³°²´¨²®ÓÂ«ÙÚ¨Â¨ÃÂ°³ÂÁ«²¨Öª¬Å´¨Áª®¨Ó²¨°²Ø¬³°²´¨³·¨®¶²¨«ª°Á²°¨°Â´³¬¨ªÁ¨®¶²¨Åª®¨ÖÂ¨»¹×Ú¨®¶²¨ Ò°ªÒª²´¨¦È®ª°Ô¨Â´´³®³ªÁ¨¶Â¨Â¨ÅªÖ¨Ò°ª·³Å²Ú¨ÂÁ´¨Ö²×°²¨®³ÅÅ¨Ö³®¶³Á¨®¶²¨®ª®ÂÅ¨ÂÅÅªÖÂÓÅ²¨Ø¬Â°²¨ ±Â°´¶³ÒÈ¨®¶²¨µË¨«ª°Á²°¨ª·¨®¶²¨Åª®¨¶Â¨ÂÁ¨ÂÓÁª°ÏÂÅÅÔ¨ÅÂ°Ç²¨°Â´³¬¨ª·¨ÉºÕÈ®¶²¨ª®¶²°¨«ª°Á²°¨°Â´³³¨ ·ªª®ÂÇ²¨·ª°¨®¶²¨Åª®¿ ¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¨¯ª¬°® Ð¯© ¦¿¨±Â°´¶³Ò ©Â¬°²Á²¨ÆªÇ²° ¼¿½ÊËÌÊ»Ì¨Í¨¼¿½ÊËÌÊ¼Ì É¿¨ÐªÏ³ÁÂÅ¨ÂÁ´¨³Á«ªÁ²Ø¬²Á®³ÂÅ ¥¹º»¼ f ¸´´³®³ªÁÂÅ¨Û¬®³·³«Â®³ªÁ 6?.#008608.00<& ; Aj4.; (800:(8.)E.' ! 00?O W\% E:#.08: ]6 Z\0880;E:,P #' * ]VWXYXYZ['> .g 34567/880? 0F:* 8..% ' . W\%:6@# 896347: ^' (_ ( < ]80;' `?K 8;0.L( .Wa\# 4AhA1d33 ( A 567/8G88088:.W_# 0 +* '>M ; W[. ;O F8>vqwnwnxoqmyz{nroxwrwqroqm! vqwnwnxoqmyzrqlwnxounrr wxrwqroqmrnur yz{yz{yz{sttnwnxolrr qmquqowlwnqyz{ ( XbXYcW nolwmqr¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ # '> Q# N( E?> z}z}z}'+ ;O 88000.> 6083 3/ & 8G880B330H8DI F80;* * (¡yz{¡yz{¡yz{.zzr {~}|f (', *}* 0.~r % r 880:# % ' zzr {~}|F80.<}r N( 00?~r ( ' 0.r *,%=¢r ' ? 8< #' .9: ghdiJ2 <%HU ¸°«¶³®²«® §½¹È»É¦È¦¹¼¹ ½¦º¨¾¿¨Àª¬Á®Â³Á¨¸Ã²¿¨Äª°®¨¯ªÅÅ³Á ¶²³´³Î®¬´³ªÈÈÂ°«¶¿«ªÏ ±²³´³¨µ¶¬·· ÁÑÂ - # .( ' .'>S -0F8080 > K > F->3/ #? % 6<00: - ..' 96 00;=) .. ' ;# * ( .?-< .(( )? .' . 0 .'> + + I # = +( 715 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 February 11, 2020 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Variance Request for 819 Locust Court To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of my client, Laurie Rogers, I am requesting a variance to Sections 4.7(E)(2) and 4.7(E)(4) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, which state that the minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet and the minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. She’s proposing to construct a 280 SF one-story office/shop addition to the east of her existing attached garage at 819 Locust Court, which would require a variance to allow the addition to extend 4’-0” into the required 15’ front and side yard setbacks at the area of the corner radius, for a total of 17 SF or floor area within the required setbacks. The project goal is to create an area to be used as a wood shop for personal use, which could be converted to an office in the future if desired. As a result, connection to both the existing garage and the main house are critical to the function of the proposed space. The existing space west of the garage is a finished bedroom, so expanding to the west for the proposed shop would not provide the required connection to the garage. A smaller footprint for the proposed shop that would keep the addition outside of the setbacks was explored, but the significant reduction in size would make the area too small to be functional as a wood shop. There is an existing 11’ utility easement at the east & south sides of the property which the proposed addition would not encroach into. I believe the abnormally large radius of 35’ at the Southeast corner of the lot (at the intersection of Locust Street & Locust Court) creates a unique hardship- the other corner radii within the area are 20’ or less. I also believe the proposed addition would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood for many reasons. First of all, the proposed addition results in only 17 SF of area within the required setbacks. Secondly, a variance would not be required if the corner radius on the lot was 20’ (the largest corner radius of the neighboring properties). Additionally, the proposed addition has a low profile, as it’s a 1-story addition. Even with the City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals February 11, 2020 Page 2 proposed addition, we’re still within the total allowable square footage for the lot (2,876 SF proposed vs. 2,916 SF allowed). Thank—you for your consideration. Sincerely, Heidi Shuff Studio S Architecture, LLC Phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidi@studio-s-arch.com )5217<$5' 6(7%$&. 5($5<$5' 6(7%$&. 6,'( <$5' 6(7 %$&. 675((7 6(7%$&. (;,67,1* +286( (;,67,1* *$5$*( 352326(' 2)),&(6+23 $'',721 9$5,$1&(5(4 ' )256):,7+,1 6(7%$&.6 /2&867&2857 /2&867675((7 87,/,7< ($6(0(17 87,/,7< ($6(0(17 3URSHUW\$GGUHVV /RFXVW&RXUW 3URSHUW\2ZQHU /DXUHQH5RJHUV *HQHUDO&RQWUDFWRU$QG\5H[ )$0,/<5220 ',1,1*5220 (175< .,7&+(1 *$5$*( *8(67%('5220 0$67(568,7( 352326('6) 6725<2)),&( 6+23$'',7,21 Z[ W 29(5+($' '225 ZLGHZRUNEHQFK ZLGHZRUNEHQFK ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP )/2253/$1 52*(565(6,'(1&( /RFXVW&RXUW )RUW&ROOLQV&2 352326('2)),&(6+23$'',7,21 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (/(9$7,216 52*(565(6,'(1&( /RFXVW&RXUW )RUW&ROOLQV&2 352326(':(67(/(9$7,21 352326('6287+(/(9$7,21 '9,(:1257+:(67 '9,(:6287+:(67 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (/(9$7,216 52*(565(6,'(1&( /RFXVW&RXUW )RUW&ROOLQV&2 352326('1257+(/(9$7,21 352326('($67(/(9$7,21 '9,(:6287+($67 '9,(:1257+($67 From: Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 8:23 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: 03-819 Locust Court-Rogers_variance request drawings-2-11-20.pdf Hi Noah, I think from reading the previous e-mails we should be good to go on our end, let me know if you need anything else from me. Thanks, Ryan Boehle Senior Construction Inspector - Engineering City of Fort Collins Office:970-416-2906 Cell:970-568-6940 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 rboehle@fcgov.com From: Fred Jones <FJones@fcgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 7:40 AM To: Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: 03-819 Locust Court-Rogers_variance request drawings-2-11-20.pdf Good Morning Ryan, I shared your plan with Steve Gilchrist and we do not see a problem with this variance request from a line of sight issue or a traffic impact concern. Thank you, Fred Jones Senior Technician City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations fjones@fcgov.com off: 970-224-6163 From: Ryan Boehle <rboehle@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2020 3:43 PM To: Fred Jones <FJones@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: 03-819 Locust Court-Rogers_variance request drawings-2-11-20.pdf Hi Fred, Here id the drawing showing the proposed addition. Noah was asking for an answer back by Thursday so we have a minute on this one. Let me know if you want me to meet you out there and I make any accommodations I can. Thanks sir !, Ryan Boehle Senior Construction Inspector - Engineering City of Fort Collins Office:970-416-2906 Cell:970-568-6940 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 rboehle@fcgov.com 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MUNICIPAL CODE Sec. 2-453. - Functions. The Board shall have the following powers and duties: (1)To hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with enforcement of the regulations established by the Land Use Code or, if applicable, Articles I through IV of the Transitional Land Use Regulations in accordance with the provisions of Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code. (2)To authorize upon appeal in specific cases, and in accordance with the provisions of Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code, variances from the terms of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code or, if applicable, Chapter 29, Articles I through IV of the Transitional Land Use Regulations. Section 9. Conflicts of Interest (a) Definitions. For purposes of construction of this Section 9, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: Business means a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self-employed individual, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust, activity or entity. NO CONFLICTS IF: Financial interest means any interest equated with money or its equivalent. Financial interest shall not include: (1) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an employee of a business, or as a holder of an ownership interest in such business, in a decision of any public body, when the decision financially benefits or otherwise affects such business but entails no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to the officer, employee or relative; (2) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a nonsalaried officer or member of a nonprofit corporation or association or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization in the holdings of such corporation, association or organization; (3) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a recipient of public services when such services are generally provided by the city on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens, regardless of whether such recipient is an officer, employee or relative; (4) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a recipient of a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business by a lending institution, in such lending institution; (5) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a shareholder in a mutual or common investment fund in the holdings of such fund unless the shareholder actively participates in the management of such fund; (6) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a policyholder in an insurance company, a depositor in a duly established savings association or bank, or a similar interest-holder, unless the 2 discretionary act of such person, as an officer or employee, could immediately, definitely and measurably affect the value of such policy, deposit or similar interest; (7) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an owner of government-issued securities unless the discretionary act of such owner, as an officer or employee, could immediately, definitely and measurably affect the value of such securities; or (8) the interest that an officer or employee has in the compensation received from the city for personal services provided to the city as an officer or employee. Officer or employee means any person holding a position by election, appointment or employment in the service of the city, whether part-time or full-time, including a member of any authority, board, committee or commission of the city, other than an authority that is: (1) established under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes; (2) governed by state statutory rules of ethical conduct; and (3) expressly exempted from the provisions of this Article by ordinance of the Council. Personal interest means any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Personal interest shall not include: (1) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a member of a board, commission, committee, or authority of another governmental entity or of a nonprofit corporation or association or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization; (2) the interest that an officer, employee or relative has in the receipt of public services when such services are generally provided by the city on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens; or (3) the interest that an officer or employee has in the compensation, benefits, or terms and conditions of his or her employment with the city. Public body means the Council or any authority, board, committee, commission, service area, department or office of the city. Relative means the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by the officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in and sharing with the officer or employee the expenses of the household. 3 CONFLICT IF: (b)Rules of conduct concerning conflicts of interest. (1) Sales to the city. No officer or employee, or relative of such officer or employee, shall have a financial interest in the sale to the city of any real or personal property, equipment, material, supplies or services, except personal services provided to the city as an officer or employee, if: a. such officer or employee is a member of the Council; b. such officer or employee exercises, directly or indirectly, any decision-making authority on behalf of the city concerning such sale; or c. in the case of services, such officer or employee exercises any supervisory authority in his or her role as a city officer or employee over the services to be rendered to the city. (2) Purchases from the city. No officer, employee or relative shall, directly or indirectly, purchase any real or personal property from the city, except such property as is offered for sale at an established price, and not by bid or auction, on the same terms and conditions as to all members of the general public. (3) Interests in other decisions. Any officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a financial or personal interest in any decision of any public body of which he or she is a member or to which he or she makes recommendations, shall, upon discovery thereof, disclose such interest in the official records of the city in the manner prescribed in subsection (4) hereof, and shall refrain from voting on, attempting to influence, or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as an officer or employee. (4) Disclosure procedure. If any officer or employee has any financial or personal interest requiring disclosure under subsection (3) of this section, such person shall immediately upon discovery thereof declare such interest by delivering a written statement to the City Clerk, with copies to the City Manager and, if applicable, to the chairperson of the public body of which such person is a member, which statement shall contain the name of the officer or employee, the office or position held with the city by such person, and the nature of the interest. If said officer or employee shall discover such financial or personal interest during the course of a meeting or in such other circumstance as to render it practically impossible to deliver such written statement prior to action upon the matter in question, said officer or employee shall immediately declare such interest by giving oral notice to all present, including a description of the nature of the interest. (5) Violations. Any contract made in violation of this Section shall be voidable by the city. If voided within one (1) year of the date of execution thereof, the party obtaining payment by reason of such contract shall, if required by the city, forthwith return to the city all or any designated portion of the monies received by such individual from the city by reason of said contract, together with interest at the lawful maximum rate for interest on judgments. Section 10. - Penalties for violation of Charter. Any violation of a provision of this Charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of such violation may be punished by a fine or imprisonment, or by both such fine and imprisonment, the maximum amount and term of which shall be no less than that established by ordinance for misdemeanor violations of the city Code. Said maximum penalty shall be set by the Council by ordinance. Any officer or employee of 4 the city convicted of such a violation shall be deprived of his or her office or employment and shall be ineligible to any city office or employment for two (2) years thereafter. LAND USE CODE Division 2.10 - VARIANCES 2.10.1 - Purpose and Applicability The purpose of this Division is to authorize, in specific cases, variances from the terms of Articles 3 and 4 or, if applicable, Articles I through IV of the Transitional Land Use Regulations. However, this variance procedure shall apply only to approved site specific development plans or to properties that were developed pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right under prior law and shall only authorize a variance from the terms of Articles 3 and 4 as provided in this Division. It shall not authorize a change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review. Also, the variance shall not be used for overall development plans, project development plans or final plans which are pending approval at the time that the request for the variance is filed. The process to be used for such pending development applications is the procedure established in Division 2.8 (Modification of Standards). 2.10.2 - Variances By the Director (A)The Director shall be authorized to grant the following types of variances, subject to the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below: (1) Setback encroachment of up to ten (10) percent. (2) Fence height increase of up to one (1) foot. (3)In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot increase of up to ten (10) percent, provided the amount of increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire lot. (4)Building height increase of up to one (1) foot.(B)The Director may refer any variance described in (A) above to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and decision if the Director determines that the application under consideration raises questions as to compliance with the requirements for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood that are appropriately addressed through a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals that will allow the applicant or the public, or both, an opportunity to provide relevant information related to the application. 5 2.10.3 - Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be authorized to grant all variances not subject to the Director's review in Section 2.10.2(A) and those referred by the Director. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall follow the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below. 2.10.4 - Variance Review Procedures A variance shall be processed according to, in compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 of the Common Development Review Procedures with the following steps applicable: 1. Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for variances as described in the development application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. 2. Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable. 3. Step 6 (Notice): For variances reviewed by the Director or the Zoning Board of Appeals subsection 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that a variance reviewed by the Director shall require mailed written notice fourteen (14) days prior to the decision instead of the hearing/meeting date and for variances reviewed by the Director or the Zoning Board of Appeals. See exceptions. 4. Step 7(A) the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals: shall review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for variance based on its compliance with all of the standards contained in Step 8. a. Steps 7(B)—(G)(1) Zoning Board of Appeals Review Only (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats, Filing with City Clerk): Applicable. b. Step 7(D) Director Review Only (Decision and Findings): Applicable and in substitution thereof, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request. The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to the property owners to whom notice was originally mailed and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com. c. Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: i. (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant; 6 ii. (2)the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or iii. (3)the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2) or (3). 8. Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. 9. Step 11 (Lapse): Any variance that applies to the issuance of a Building Permit shall expire six (6) months after the date that such variance was granted, unless all necessary permits have been applied for; provided, however, that for good cause shown, the Director may authorize a longer term if such longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, but in no event shall the period of time for applying for all necessary permits under a variance exceed twelve (12) months in length. One (1) six- month extension may be granted by the Director. 10 Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable and in substitution thereof, variances decided by the Director are appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any such appeal must be initiated by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Director within fourteen (14) days after the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be considered a new, or de novo , hearing. The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council. HPDLODQGUHZUUH[#JPDLOFRP SKRQH 3DUFHO1R /HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ/27)$/.6($%(5*68%)7& =RQLQJ'LVWULFW 1&/ 6XEGLYLVLRQ )$/.6($%(5* 6HWEDFNV )URQW<DUG )HHW ¶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