The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/12/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long 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 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190035 Address: 5109 S. Shields Street Owner/Petitioner: Dale & Fay Baker Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(b)&(d) Project Description: This variance request is for a one-story addition to the existing house. The addition proposes to match the front setback of the existing structure which is a 30 foot encroachment into the 30 foot front setback and to match the existing side setback which is a 5 foot encroachment into the 20 foot side setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA190036 Address: 2307 Stonegate Drive Owner/Petitioner: Captain & Kathleen Payne Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4 (D)(2)(c & d) Project Description: This variance request is to construct a carport which encroaches 2 feet into the 15 foot rear setback and 1 foot into the 15 foot side street setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 September 12, 2019 3. APPEAL ZBA190037 Address: 207 N. Grant Ave Owner Matt Fater Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: This variance request is to construct an addition which encroaches 8 feet 3-1/2 inches into the required 15 foot rear setback 4. APPEAL ZBA190038 Address: 414 N Loomis Owner/Petitioner: Jim & Theresa Frith Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(2)(b)1. Project Description: This variance is for a proposed accessory building. The eave height along the side lot lines are 16 feet 10 inches tall on both the north and south side of the structure, maximum eave height allowed is 13 feet 6 inches. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer 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 AUGUST 8 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Chair Shields called the meeting to order. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by Chair Shields, to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2019 meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190031 – WITHDRAWN 2. APPEAL ZBA190032 – APPROVED Address: 214 Wood Street Owner/Petitioner: Donald Griffith Jr. Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance is to allow a carport to encroach 3.67 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request noting this property corners 2 alleys but is located mid-block. This is a request for a current carport to continue to be in place encroaching into the side-yard setback. The carport is open on 4 sides and does not exceed allowable floor area for the overall lot or the rear half of the lot. The carport does not exceed any height limitations on accessory structures. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 August 8, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked about water runoff. Beals confirmed that the shed roof is angled down to the east and west, both sides drain towards the owner’s property. Applicant Presentation: Donald Griffith Jr., 214 Wood Street, addressed the board. He has been in this house since 1991, and has been parking his car on the gravel in that location for the past 2 years. They have had hail damage on their vehicles in the past and would like protection from the elements. The carport meets all snow loading and wind requirements for Colorado weather. His surrounding neighbors have no issues with the carport. Vice Chair LaMastra asked the owner if this carport was installed without a permit. Mr. Griffith confirmed that was the case, he received some incorrect information and was not aware he needed a permit to build this structure. They are using an existing gate to access the carport. Audience Participation: None. Beals read an email aloud from neighbor, Melina Dempsey, in support of the carport. Board Discussion: Discussion regarding the lot that abuts this carport. Confirmation that is a residential lot, even though there is no structure immediately on the other side of the fence. Long asked if these carports are included in floor area. Beals stated that code changes last year resulted in the square footage of car ports being included in the total floor area. However, even including this carport, the floor area is within limitations. Chair Shields requested additional information on why the building requires a permit. Beals confirmed the carport is over 8 feet tall and over 120 square feet which requires a building permit. In addition, they are required to meet the setbacks. Stockover didn’t see any problem with the carport, this is a long and narrow lot with current gate access. Vice Chair LaMastra had initial concerns with water drainage, but it appears all water will runoff into the owner’s property. Therefore, there is no obvious negative impact for the neighbors. Chair Shields stated he is in support of the proposal. There are two columns that encroach into the setback, which is minimal. Motion: Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA190032 for the following reasons, the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment is 18 feet of 180 foot length of the property line, the carport is open on all 4 sides, the encroachment is for 2 columns and 66 square foot of roof, and the property does not exceed the allowable floor area; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Long, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA190033 – DENIED Address: 225 Whedbee St. Owner: Daniel Baker Petitioner: David Kaplan Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (D)(5) Project Description: This variance request is for a new accessory building with habitable space. The preferred design requires a variance to exceed the allowable floor area for an accessory building by 700 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet and the proposed total is 1,300 square feet. The design includes 700 square feet of floor area on the first floor and 600 square feet on the upper portion. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there were three different options proposed for this accessory building and the description on the agenda is the most extreme of the three. Option 1 complies with code except for floor area. Currently in an accessory building with the ceiling height under 7.5 feet does not count towards floor area. The ceiling height for option 1 is 8 feet. If the ceiling was dropped to 7.5 feet then it would meet all standards. Option 2 has the additional floor area above, but with a staircase inside the building as Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 August 8, 2019 opposed to outside the building. Option 3 would remove the staircase from the inside, and place it outside along the southside of the building. All options exceed the accessory building square footage allotment. LaMastra asked about the code’s intent regarding the 7.5 foot ceiling height requirement when nothing is changed on the exterior height. Beals believes it was to align with some building code standards and put parameters in place regarding when a space is considered habitable. The City tries to minimize an accessory building being used as a dwelling unit when the lots are smaller in size. Stockover stated that he was on this board when that code passed and remembers referencing the example of large vaulted rooms with a loft sleeping area that did not count towards square footage. The code was trying to define what is counted towards floor area. Chair Shields recalled the building code defines habitable space as a minimum of 7.5 feet ceiling height. Long stated the code was also trying to address elicit garage apartments. Meyer asked about the differences between the three options and why the location of the stairs was moved. Beals explained there is code section that states windows that face an interior sideline should be as minimal as possible. The outside staircase and landing is not out of compliance, but the applicant saw that portion of the code and created another option. They still meet the building height, setbacks, and other design standards. Applicant Presentation: Daniel Baker and Season Baker, 225 Whedbee Street, addressed the board. Option 1 is essentially in compliance if they use a 7.5 foot ceiling, possibly a loft and vaulted ceiling if allowed. Option 2 is adding 100 square feet on the ground floor of the garage. Their goal is to maintain a 600 square foot garage and add an extra 4 feet in width to the building mostly for the stairwell. The upstairs would be 600 square feet. Mr. Baker is sensitive to the massing issues, not looking to exceed the building height. They have a neighbor to the south who has a stairway on the exterior west side of their house which looks right into Mr. Baker’s yard. They would prefer to have this stairway on the inside as to not impose on their neighbors and to increase safety. Vice Chair LaMastra asked the applicant which option is preferred. Mr. Baker stated option 2, that includes a 700 square foot ground floor and the stairway inside the building, with 8 foot or vaulted ceilings. The space will be used for additional living space with their three children, visiting family, and possibly for their home office. Chair Shields confirmed with Mr. Baker they have gone through a conceptual review with city staff. Audience Participation: Ben Leistikow and Ayla Leistikow, 225 Whedbee Street, addressed the board. This project will have a large impact on their property which is directly south of the lot being discussed. They have a ranch style 1950’s house located about 10 feet from the fence. This structure will look directly down into their backyard and into their French doors. Chair Shields asked if they are opposed to option 2 with the enclosed stairway. Mr. Leistikow stated it will still have an impact on their property. Vice Chair LaMastra confirmed that the neighbor’s concern is the windows facing into their property and the lack of privacy. Mr. Leistikow agreed and added that he doesn’t like the height, but it’s not his main concern. Discussion comparing setbacks in the three different options. Chair Shields allowed Mr. Baker back up to the microphone to clarify. Mr. Baker stated on the north side of the lot there are solar setbacks in place, and the new construction will be right against those setbacks. The setback leaves 11 or 12 feet to the south side of their building. Vice Chair LaMastra requested clarifications regarding solar setbacks. Beals explained solar setbacks are in place when a building has a wall height greater than 14 feet in specific residential zone districts. There are additional setbacks required to ensure sunlight still reaches the neighboring properties. Wayne Carpenter, owns 218 Peterson street, but lives outside of city limits. Appreciates that the applicant is trying to improve the neighborhood, but is concerned about the view from the neighbor. However, Mr. Carpenter is most troubled with the nearby alley being paved. In about 1985 the City told them it would be paved. Afterwards the City contacted them again and advised it would not be paved immediately but sometime in the future. Mr. Carpenter would like to figure out how to get the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 August 8, 2019 alley paved. Beals confirmed we did receive an email from Mr. Carpenter and he has forwarded that correspondence to the engineering department for follow up. Beals read aloud letters of support from Laura Petrick (207 Whedbee Street), Pete Moore (211 Whedbee Street) and Jeff Poznanovic (221 Whedbee Street). Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra requested more information on the solar setbacks. Mr. Baker clarified they total 10.5 feet from the north property line. LaMastra asked if there was ever an option to move the stairway to the east side to allow the building to move the building an additional 4 feet away from the southern neighbors. The applicant does not think the stairway would affect the solar setback, referred to Mr. Beals. Beals stated an exterior, unenclosed staircase does have some allowance in being in the setback. However, the wall height does still have to meet solar setbacks. LaMastra stated option 1 does increase the solar setback to the neighbors more than option 2 or 3. Stockover asked if the solar setback is something you can request a variance on. Beals confirmed that is the case. Stockover stated there are other potential designs that would make this more palatable for the neighbor, and he is not in support of this current design. McCoy asked if the ceiling height is reduced to under 7.5 feet on the second story can they still have heat and the working bathroom. Beals confirmed the same. Chair Shields stated no certificate of occupancy will be issued if the ceiling height is under 7.5 feet. McCoy discussed the options and what is within code versus what would require a variance. Long stated this appears to be a future residential accessory building. This is an example of why the code was written. Everyone wants a double size outbuilding, but this is over twice what is permitted. LaMastra agreed with Long, this is not nominal or inconsequential and there is no unique hardship. We have to look at code. Option 1 does have the least impact to the south neighbors. Meyer stated he has had many clients past and present who desire this scenario, but it’s not what the code allows. There are other ways to build more living space and stay within code. This is not nominal and inconsequential. LaMastra considered making a motion for option 1 with 7.5 ceilings to reduce the impact on the neighbors Meyer supported the option to allow the applicant to exceed by 100 square feet, but 700 square feet is too much. Beals clarified that option 1 only needs a variance to take the ceiling from 7.5 feet to 8 feet in height. Motion: Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to deny ZBA190033, finding that the maximum floor area on the main level, a 50% increase in floor area, is not nominal and inconsequential, there is insufficient evidence in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard, and insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standard in a way equally or better than a proposal that complies with standards. Yeas: Long, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED, THE VARIANCE WAS DENIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Council will meet on August 20, 2019 to discuss appointing a new ZBA boardmember, Ian Shuff. • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190035 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 5109 S. Shields Street Petitioner/Owner: Dale & Fay Baker Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(b)&(d) Variance Request: This variance request is for a one-story addition to the existing house. The addition proposes to match the front setback of the existing structure which is a 30 foot encroachment into the 30 foot front setback and to match the existing side setback which is a 5 foot encroachment into the 20 foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was platted in the county in 1978. The existing building was built in 1920. It is unclear the changes that have occurred to the building since original construction. The City annexed this area in 1989. Since the annexation the only building permits issued have been for interior remodel and a reroof. The existing building sits on the front property line. It is unclear if any portion of the building actually encroaches into the public right-of-way. When the property was annexed into the City it was Zoned Low Density Planned residential District (R-L-P). The R-L-P front setback was 20ft and side setback was 5ft. At the time of adoption of the current Land Use Code and rezoning of the entire City this property was placed in the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends Uapproval with the condition the addition is setback 5ft from the front property line Uand finds that: • The variance with condition is not detrimental to the public good • The existing house already sits 0ft to the front setback and 15ft to the side setback • The addition is 21ft in length along the 130ft width of the front property line. • Most of the entire house is built into the setback making it difficult for any addition to comply • There is a ditch that runs close to the house both on the west and south side 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 and a strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA190035. 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 __________________________________________ Currently the existing house is at zero lot line. This happened when the city annexed the property from the county, thus making it non-conforming. Additionally, another hardship is created by the irrigation ditch that is located approximately 5-8 ft from the west and south walls of the house. With theses issues, the most reasonable place to expand is the northeast corner of the property. We would like to increase the space inside the home, this area of the yard is unusable and putting the addition there fills out the footprint of the house. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190036 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2307 Stonegate Drive Petitioner/Owner: Captain & Kathleen Payne Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4 (D)(2)(c & d) Variance Request: This variance request is to construct a carport which encroaches 2 feet into the 15 foot rear setback and 1 foot into the 15 foot side street setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a part of the Sunstone Village PUD, that was platted in 1987. The original building was built in 1988. It is a corner lot that faces onto Stonegate Drive. The abutting property to the south faces onto Sunstone Drive. The south abutting property has a 20ft front setback along Sunstone and a 5ft side-yard setback along the shared property line. 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 only the 2 ft encroachment into the rear-yard setback and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The encroachment is only for a corner carport • The abutting neighbor of the shared property line has a 5ft setback Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Further staff recommends denial and finds that: • The other buildings along Sunstone are required a 20ft setback. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of one variance for APPEAL ZBA190036. August 13, 2019 To whom it may concern: I find myself needing to apply for a variance; given the geography and layout of my parcel and physical surroundings. We have an odd shaped lot which puts the corners of the structure slightly over the setbacks, the corners are necessary to keep the detached garage/carport functional and aesthetically pleasing. I am seeking a variance (permitted exception) to be exempt from the code to be able to construct my detached garage/carport structure in the best suitable location on the parcel. This structure will not interfere with existing residential parcels and will be built in mind with the existing character of the neighborhood. My design will keep conformity in the neighborhood and preserve not only my property value but those around me. The reasons we need this structure: -To protect our vehicles from the harsh weather conditions; we have had 2 damaging hail storms within the 10 years of residing here. -Our attached garage is being used as a shop and functions best that way because it is insulated, provides electrical and is cost effective to heat and cool. -Our vehicles do not require these amenities. We simply need shelter to increase our productivity and get the kids to school in a timely manner without the daily ice scraping. Captain and Kathy Payne - 2307 Stonegate Dr Fort Collins CO 80525 ZBA190036 - Pictures Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190037 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 207 N. Grant Ave Petitioner: Matt Fater Owner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Variance Request: This variance request is to construct an addition which encroaches 8 feet 3-1/2 inches into the required 15 ft rear setback. .COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a part of the West Side subdivision that was platted in1881. The original structure was built in 1924. This parcel has been subdivided from the original lot that fronted onto Laporte Ave. The front half of the original lot still fronts onto Laporte Ave and its original structure was built in 1908. The subject parcel is 4,900 sf in size. The minimum required lot size in the N-C-M zone district is 5,000 sf. Therefore, this parcel is legally nonconforming in size. 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 addition does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot overall and in the rear-half • The addition is a one-story matching the existing structure • The abutting west abutting property has a 5ft setback from the shared 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 ZBA190037. 715 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 August 13, 2019 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Variance Request for 207 N. Grant Avenue To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of my client, Matt Fater, I am requesting a variance to Section 4.8(E)(3) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, which states that the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet. He’s proposing to construct a 425 SF one-story addition at the back of his existing 860 SF one- story home at 207 N. Grant Avenue, which would require a variance to allow the addition to extend 8’-3 ½” into the required 15’ rear yard setback. The project goals are to keep the existing house as-is as much as possible, enlarge the kitchen & living room, and create a new dining room and master suite. The existing bedrooms are all on the north side of the house with the living spaces to the south, therefore it makes most sense to add the master suite at the northwest side of the house to allow natural separations between the public and private spaces & to retain the existing windows which provide natural light into the living spaces on the south. Furthermore, the homes within the immediate area are predominantly 1-story, making a 1-story addition at the rear of the home the contextually appropriate design solution to maintain consistency with the scale of the existing neighborhood. I believe the small, shallow lot creates a unique hardship. The lot is only 4,900 SF, whereas the minimum lot size in the NCM zone district is 5,000 SF, and is only 70 feet deep. 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 existing sunroom/ enclosed back porch on the west side of the home already encroaches approximately 5’ into the 15’ rear yard setback and will be removed prior to construction of the proposed addition, requiring only an additional 3’-3 ½” encroachment into the rear yard setback. Secondly, the neighboring properties to the west and south already enjoy a 5’ setback along the same property line, as this property’s rear property line is their side property line. Additionally, the proposed addition has a low profile, since it’s a 1-story addition and even with the proposed addition, we’re still well within the total allowable square footage for the lot (1,285 SF proposed vs. 2,225 SF allowed) as well as within the allowable area for the rear half of the lot (763 Sf proposed vs. 808 SF allowed). Lastly, the proposed addition would not negatively affect any neighboring properties with respect to solar access, since there is an alley directly north of the property. City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals August 13, 2019 Page 2 Thank—you for your consideration. Sincerely, Heidi Shuff Studio S Architecture, LLC Phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 6,'( <$5' 6(7%$&. 5($5<$5' 6(7%$&. )5217<$5' 6(7%$&. (;,67,1* 21(6725< +286( $//(< 1*5$17$9(18( (;67 6+(' 6,'( <$5' 6(7%$&. ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (;,67,1*&21',7,216 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 'Á 5%#.' ':+56+0)5+6'2.#0 5() ': 83 83 :+ :DVKHU )' ',1,1* 5220 %('5220 )5217 325&+ &/2 /,9,1* 5220 %('5220 %$7+ .,7&+(1 &/2 &/26(7 %$&. 325&+ &5$:/63$&( %$6(0(17 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (;,67,1*&21',7,216 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 'Á 5%#.' ':+56+0)(+456(.1142.#0 6)6)%$&.325&+ 6) 'Á 5%#.' ':56$#5'/'06 6) ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (;,67,1*&21',7,216 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR ' 5%#.' Á ':560146*'.'8#6+10 ' 5%#.' Á ':56'#56'.'8#6+10 ' 5%#.' Á ':569'56'.'8#6+10 ' 5%#.' Á ':565176*'.'8#6+10 6,'( <$5' 6(7%$&. 5($5<$5' 6(7%$&. )5217<$5' 6(7%$&. (;,67,1* 21(6725< +286( $//(< 1*5$17$9(18( (;67 6+(' 6,'( <$5' 6(7%$&. 352326(' $'',7,21 3URSHUW\$GGUHVV 1*UDQW$YHQXH 3URSHUW\2ZQHU 0DWW)DWHU 2ZQHU V3KRQH 3DUFHO1R /HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ 1)72)/276$1'%/.:(676,'( $''71)7& =RQLQJ'LVWULFW 1&0 6XEGLYLVLRQ :(676,'( 6HWEDFNV )URQW<DUG )HHW 5HDU<DUG )HHW 6LGH<DUG )HHW /RW6L]H 6) ¶[¶ )ORRU$UHD5DWLR [ORWDUHD6) $OORZDEOH7RWDO)ORRU$UHD6) 83 ': 0$67(5 %('5220 0$67(5 %$7+ 0$67(5 &/26(7 9(5,)<,1),(/' ',1,1* 5220 %('5220 )5217 325&+ &/2 /,9,1* 5220 %('5220 %$7+ 2)),&( .,7&+(1 &/26(7 3$7,2 :+ :DVKHU )' (;,67,1* &5$:/63$&( (;,67,1* %$6(0(17 1(:&5$:/ 63$&( 1(:&5$:/63$&( ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 5&Á 5%#.' Á 241215'&$#5'/'06 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 5&Á 5%#.' Á 5&'#56'.'8#6+10 5&Á 5%#.' Á 5&5176*'.'8#6+10 5&'Á 5%#. 5'ÁÁÁÁ&5' &8+'9 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 5%#.' 5&Á Á 5&0146*'.'8#6+10 5&Á 5%#.' Á 5&9'56'.'8#6+10 5&'Á 5%#. 59ÁÁÁÁ&59 &8+'9 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190038 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 414 N. Loomis Petitioner/Owner: Jim & Theresa Frith Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(2)(b)1. Variance Request: This variance is for a proposed accessory building. The eave height along the side lot lines are 16 feet 10 inches tall on both the north and south side of the structure, maximum eave height allowed is 13 feet 6 inches. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is part of the West Side Addition subdivision that was platted in 1881. The original building was constructed in 1900 and a significant remodel occurred in 1995. The property was a rectangle shaped lot. In time an alley was dedicated on the block that cut through the lot. A portion of the Alley was then vacated leaving the current shape of the lot. The Alley access to the lot is on the south property line. The south side is a side property. 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 condition that the fenestration on the north side is limited to a clearstory window and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The shorter width of the garage faces the side lot lines • The structure is setback beyond the minimum 5ft side-yard setback • The alley dedication and vacation left a unique shape parcel • Eave height varies from 13.5’ and 16.78’ 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 and 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA190038. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV FRITH Residence – Variance Request 414 N. Loomis Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 08/08/2019 Hello, We are requesting a variance for the maximum eave height along a side lot line for a detached accessory building; LUO 4.8(F)(2)(b)1. The unique nature of the lot is such that the alley access approaches the side yard of the home, requiring the garage door to face that alley so a vehicle can access the garage. This then makes the "front" of the bldg to face the side lot, requiring the eave heights to meet LUC 4.8(F)(2)(b)1. In an endeavor to maintain the principle views toward the existing house, while still maintaining a habitable space within the upper floor, the roofline is such that the eaves on the front and rear of the property meet code, but at a height of 17’10”, the ridgeline of the roof on the side lots is taller than the allowable height by 4’-4” (see exterior elevations). This is with the expectation that since the structure is an additional 1’-0” away from the side yard setbacks, we’re allowed a max eave height of 13’-6”. The max eave height of the majority of the building is within the 13’-6” max, it is only the two ridgeline areas on the two side yards that fall above this maximum. Also, in an effort to minimize window/views into neighboring properties, we only placed one small bathroom window on the North side yard, and the windows over the garage door on the South side yard overlook the alley, and not another dwelling/property. We’ve made every effort to conform to the LUO standards of building height and massing, views, and overall aesthetic of the detached dwelling. At 17’-10”, we are under the maximum building height of 24’-0” and at 16’-10”, we are under the maximum wall height of 18’-0”. The roof pitch meets standards, and the 1 ½ building height is accomplished. Thank you for taking time to review this request, Best, Massey Books – architect SMASHdesign, LLC E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2 Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted ____ ______ ____ ____________________ 414 N. LOOMIS RD 80521 414 N. LOOMIS RD JIM & THERESA FRITH 760-822-4688 LUC 4.8(F)(2)(b)1 theresa@simplelifeorganizing.pro N-C-M MASSEY BROOKS 1005 W. Prospect Rd, Unit C 321-795-1176 massey@smashdesign.me The unique nature of the lot is such that the alley access approaches the sideyardofthehome, requiring the garage door to face that alley so a vehicle can access the garage. This then makes the "front" of the bldg to face the side lot, requiring the eave heights to meet LUC 4.8(F)(2)(b)1. In an endeavor to maintain the principle views toward the existing house, the ridge on the side yard falls slightly outside of the max. Please see statement for more information. 08/07/2019 1. Hardship Additional Justification Additional Justification &/2 &/2 /,1(1" 1(: (;67 9(5,)<,1),/(' ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 )$7(55(6,'(1&( 1*UDQW$YHQXH )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 5&Á 5%#.' Á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ÁÁ 5%#.' 241215'&5+6'2.#0