Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ken Summers Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 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 ZBA190016 Address: 227 West Street Owner/Petitioner: Tim LeRoy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (D) (3) Project Description: The variance is for a single-family home and accessory building at 227 West Street to exceed allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot by 671.61 square feet with a total of 1965.36 square feet proposed on the rear half. The overall allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot is 1293.75 square feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA190017 Address: 1420 Banyan Drive Owner/Petitioner: Mike & Angie Sweeney Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4 (D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance is to construct a sunroom at 1420 Banyan Dr, which encroaches 3 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. • OTHER BUSINESS Amendment to Land Use Code Variance Requests • ADJOURNMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Shelley La Mastra Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ken Summers Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by LaMastra, to approve the March 14, 2019 Minutes. Vote Yeas: McCoy, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Abstain: Stockover Nays: None The Motion was carried. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190010 –DENIED Address: 936 Kimball Road Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 26 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 832 square foot accessory building is 32 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. This is a new variance request. A previous variance request was denied this year for a larger accessory building. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This board did see this request earlier in the year. The outside south facing wall of the accessory building is being ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 April 11, 2019 pushed in 10 feet from the previous request. This reduces the amount of floor area as defined by code and reduces the variance request to only 32 square feet. The structure does meet the required setbacks and height requirements, the variance is only an increase of additional floor area, which is limited to 800 square feet. Boardmember Meyer asked Mr. Beals about an amendment to accessory buildings in which the areas with a covered roof are now included in floor area. Beals confirmed that is correct for other zone districts as they define floor area differently. Applicant Presentation: Larry Dietz, 936 Kimball Road, addressed the board. The previous request was for 1152 square feet, and at that time he didn’t see a way to downsize the building. Afterwards Mr. Dietz spoke with his structural engineer and they made a plan to bring the wall in by 10 feet therefore making the space 832 square feet. The proposal will have an awning with 14 feet in wall height. This is intentional as his 2004 RV is 11 foot 6 inches but he would like to upgrade in the future and new RV models are 13 feet 2 inches in height. Mr. Dietz will pursue a permit after this hearing. Mr. Dietz would also like to mention that after the last hearing, he had an uncivil encounter in the backyard with neighbor Ms. DeAngelis and he would like to apologize. Boardmember LaMastra asked if the wall is being moved in anyway, is there a reason the wall can’t be moved in enough to comply with code. Mr. Dietz replied that 10 feet is an even number, and it makes sense for the dimensional lumber. He could probably move the wall an extra 6 inches to make the square footage under 800. Audience Participation: Stefanie DeAngelis, 930 Kimball Road, addressed the board. The zoning department has already decided this structure is not acceptable. This is the same building that has already been denied, Mr. Dietz will now just be leaving the last third of it unfinished. He won’t be changing the exterior dimensions at all, visually it has the same imprint as before. This structure has not received a permit previously and should not be granted one now. It violates the integrity and character of the neighborhood. The new proposal does nothing to address the massing issues and safety concerns expressed by the board at the last hearing. Without an HOA, they do depend on these codes to protect the neighborhood homes and investments. Patty Jeffries, 2804 W Elizabeth, neighbor due south of the barn. She supported the original footprint, if all the vehicles and equipment are inside the barn it will enhance the view from her patio. The extra 32 feet is not discernable to her, but having all the vehicles and equipment inside the barn will be an improvement. This is a huge improvement to the neighborhood, and is not a safety issue. John Schuh, 925 Kimball Road, across the street from Larry’s property, is in support of Mr. Dietz. The proposal is a great improvement over the previous dilapidated building. The footprint is not an issue as this is only 32 square feet, the equivalent to a 4 by 8 piece of plywood. Shirley Schuh, 925 Kimball Road, across the street, present to support this building. It’s an improvement for their property and the neighborhood. This is a safety issue to get their vehicles off the road and driveway. Sandie Dietz, owner of the property, wants to reiterate that Sheer Engineering has inspected the building and it is completely safe. Right now, it does not look very good, but in the end it will match the house in roof and siding. Setbacks and height are within zoning regulations. Board Discussion: Boardmember Long reminded the board how this started in 2014 when Mr. Dietz got tired of dealing with the building department and decided to start constructing this building with no permits. There was an existing low side wall barn in the backyard. If Mr. Dietz had just chosen to make an 11-foot overhang, this could already be underway without a variance. The massing and height all meet code except for the 32 square feet. No matter what, this will not be a good fit for the neighborhood. Boardmember LaMastra agreed, does not see evidence of a hardship that would justify this variance. It is very tall, but still meets code. Boardmember Stockover said the 32 feet is an issue of efficiency, lumber dimensions are more efficient to build at certain intervals. The structure will be there one way or another, the extra foot will not change the shadowing, and is not perceivable in vision. This is nominal and inconsequential, as Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 April 11, 2019 no one will be able to tell the difference. People will be affected as it’s a big building with a tall roof. They cannot right code. It’s not going away, but might as well make it efficient. Boardmember LaMastra pointed out when she asked about the dimensions, Mr. Dietz said he arbitrarily chose the number. Boardmember Long stated 26 feet is not divisible by 4, there will already be cutting involved. Boardmember Meyer stated the efficiency argument would make sense if this was a multifamily building with repetition. This is a single structure, not an argument for efficiency. Meyer is surprised by the applicant’s desire to go through this process again when moving this wall one foot would have avoided this meeting and he could already be moving forward. Boardmember Shields agreed, 32 square feet is not discernable, but still doesn’t see a reason why the applicant can’t meet the 800 square foot limit. Boardmember McCoy was also surprised to see this item again for 32 feet. This building doesn’t fit in the neighborhood, but is still allowable, which means it has to meet code. Boardmember Long agreed Boardmember Stockover disagreed. He wasn’t here last month, and is looking at this item with fresh eyes. Boardmember LaMastra stated if the lumber made sense and you didn’t have to cut it, that would be something. But they are going to have to cut it anyway. Therefore, it’s not a valid justification based on the increments of lumber. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to deny ZBA190010 for the following reasons: the general bulk and massing of the structure is not in context with accessory buildings and therefore not nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood, insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property, insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that actually complies with the standards. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Nays: Stockover The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA190011 – APPROVED Address: 2120 W. Prospect Road Owner/Petitioner: Michael Thomas Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(e) Project Description: Variance for a pop-the-top addition to a barn home in the R-L Low Density Residential District. The addition will give the home an average height of 31 feet from grade to roof peak. This is 3 feet over the maximum building height in R-L which is 28 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This is an existing house on the property that is seeking to increase the height and number of floors. In this district, the height of a building is measured by taking the average height of all four sides from the greatest height at the roof to grade in the center of each side. Which for this building, comes to 31 feet. There is a significant grade change from west Prospect, going north to the end of the property. The building itself sits back about 50 feet from either side property line and a significant amount from the rear property line. Showed pictures regarding the grade change and the structure. Applicant Presentation: Michael Thomas, 2120 W. Prospect Road, addressed the board. When reviewing codes, the applicant thought they had closer to 32 feet in height for the barn. This is the original 100-year-old barn from the beet farm. The original beams are failing 2x4’s, so they are forced to replace the roof. They had wanted a gambrel roof, and thought they had enough height to add two bedrooms for their growing family. The gambrel roof has to be half as high as it is wide. The structure is 32 feet wide, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 April 11, 2019 therefore must be 16 feet tall. Luckily half the house is in the first of two embankments, so they run an average of 31 feet in height. The house is surrounded by 100 foot trees and on a hill, they are quite hidden from the neighbors. Audience Participation: Pete Long, 3847 S. Mason, owns the property adjacent to the east, has no objections to the variance. Beals received three additional emails, and read them aloud. Neighbor, Quincy Crane, would prefer to see a lower profile to the home, but given other structures on the property, it’s probably not an issue. Her concern is multiple other unfinished structures on the property, as well as piles of debris and tall weeds. The neighbor would prefer to see more effort put into finishing and maintaining the current projects before taking on another building project. Neighbors Sherri and Joe Turner, property owners at 2111 West Lake Street, state the proposed construction does not concern them as the trees on the property prevent a clear view. They just hope the addition is completed in a timely fashion so the Thomas family can pay more attention to the weeds and overgrowth in their yard. Neighbor Janet Diane Campbell, of 2130 W Prospect Rd has lived at this property since 1964.This is a rural area with a rural feel with lot sizes about one acre and many wild animals. Mr. Thomas has disrupted the ambiance of the neighborhood with barking dogs, construction noise, and multiple structures on his property. Ms. Campbell would prefer the applicant build in compliance with code. Mr. Thomas addressed the board in response to the neighbor’s emails. Stated their neighbor called the police on them twice for having fires, which is really their boiler. The same neighbor had also called immigration three times on the previous owner of 2120 W. Prospect Road, when they had been a citizen for three generations in Fort Collins. Two other neighbors have also had the police called on them for various reasons. When Mr. Thomas purchased the property there were two existing structures. The back one is a 100-year-old beet cellar, which will have to be taken down eventually as it’s falling apart. The second structure was the house. Mr. Thomas also built an open carport because the other garage structure is not tall enough for vehicles. Boardmember LaMastra asked if this structure has been through historic review, Mr. Thomas confirmed that it has. Board Discussion: Boardmember Shields asked how long an appeal is held open. Mr. Beals explained an applicant can obtain a permit within 6 months of the appeal. If the appeal expires, the applicant can come before the board again to ask for an extension for another 6 months. After that, if the 6 months expired again, they would need to reapply for a variance. Boardmember Long discussed the sloping site. From the street, because of the trees and the landscaping behind it, it’s not going to appear as tall as it would normally. Height becomes nominal and inconsequential due to the sloping site. Boardmember LaMastra requested clarification on the height from grade to roof peak. Beals confirmed 31 feet is correct. Boardmember Shields agreed with Long, the nature of the site being sloped and wooded with trees makes this nominal and inconsequential. Difficult to tell the additional three feet in height. Boardmember LaMastra, stated given the style of the roof it’s also a small portion of the roof that exceeds the maximum height, nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Meyer agreed, if they had chosen to go with a standard gable roof, the peak would have been taller, it seems they have made efforts to provide a design that tries to accommodate the extra square footage while keeping the ridge as low as possible. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190011 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, a mature tree growth decreases the visibility of the primary building, existing grade changes on the property cause more of the garden/basement level to be exposed, the lot is 6 times the minimum lot size in the R-L zone district, and the primary structure exceeds all the minimum setbacks in the R-L zone district. Therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant and the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 April 11, 2019 neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 3. APPEAL ZBA190012 – APPROVED Address: 131 S. Sherwood Street Owner: Sharon Getz Petitioner: Jeff Gaines Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4), 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: Variance for a half-story addition and associated eave projection to encroach into the 15-foot corner- side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property was seen at the last hearing for a different variance. This is for a half-story addition to the existing structure which will increase the wall height by four feet. A variance is required because the extension is within 15 feet of the setback. The increase of 4 feet on this wall does not exceed the height of the existing building itself. It is the wall height of a non-confirming structure that is the only issue. Boardmember McCoy confirmed this is not a change from what was seen last month, this specific issue was just not pointed out as a variance. Applicant Presentation: Sharon Getz, 131 S. Sherwood Street, addressed the board with architect Zach Larrick, 429 S. Howes Street, from HighCraft Builders. Their team reviewed the project after the last hearing and confirmed the height also needs a variance. The reason for the extension is to create space for a bathroom on the second floor. This is the only area in the house that would make sense to add that bathroom without having to greatly change the project scope. From Oak Street there is a generous 15-foot setback, this will be inconsequential when viewed from the street. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this seems straightforward, the property line doesn’t seem to go where it should. Boardmember LaMastra agreed, it does not extend any further than the existing structure and fits the character of the house. Motion: Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve ZBA190012 under section 2.10.2(H) for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing structure encroaches into setback at both the first and second story, the additional height does not exceed the allowable building in the N-C-M zone district, the additional height does not exceed the height of tallest point of the existing building. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 4. APPEAL ZBA190013 – APPROVED Address: 601 E. Elizabeth Street Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 April 11, 2019 Owner: Joseph & Kate Hannah Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for the 2nd story dormer to encroach 8.33 feet into the required 15 feet rear yard setback and 8 inches into the required 15 feet street-side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This is a non- confirming structure not meeting the setbacks currently. This is not an increase in floor area, just increasing wall heights into setbacks. This property is addressed on Elizabeth with a 15 foot street side setback along Smith Street and a 15 foot rear yard setback along Elizabeth. This rear yard setback abuts the 5-foot side yard setback for the neighboring property that faces Smith Street. The application is requesting to increase that dormer size over 8 feet into the rear yard setback and 8 inches into the side yard setback. This does not exceed the current height of the house. Beals believes this construction began after a tree fell onto the house. Applicant Presentation: JJ Hannah, 601 E. Elizabeth Street, addressed the board. Mr. Hannah confirmed that a tree did fall on their house, which prompted this construction. Neighbors have been very supportive, there have been some letters submitted. Audience Participation: Heidi Shuff, with Studio S Architecture, 715 W Mountain Ave., addressed the board. The neighbor most impacted would be to the south where there is already a 5-foot side yard setback. There is also a driveway on the northside of that neighbor’s property so there is currently about 20 feet between the 2 buildings. This is not adding any square footage, just making that space in the master bath more useable. They will inset the dormer on both sides to match the front dormer, in an attempt to mitigate the impact to the southern neighbor. There is no impact to neighbors regarding solar since there are streets on north and west side. Board Discussion: Boardmemer Long stated this is nominal and inconsequential because of the setbacks. Boardmember Stockover agreed when damage is done, you want a nice repair and it’s the perfect time to add space. Everything about this works. Motion: Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190013 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing structure encroaches into setback at both the first and second story, the existing first story encroaches more than the proposed dormer, the additional width in dormer is not an increase in floor area, the south abutting property only has a required 5 feet 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. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 5. APPEAL ZBA190014 – APPROVED Address: 2708 Nottingham Square Owner: Stephen & Peggy Hollingshead Petitioner: Allen Curtis Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b) Project Description: This is a request for a deck to encroach 6 feet into the 20-foot front yard setback. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 April 11, 2019 Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This is a request for a deck along the front of the house. Under current building codes, all decks on the front of a house need a permit and must comply to setbacks. The existing stoop does encroach into the setback, and the proposed deck would do the same. The increase into the setback is in the width not in length. No proposed covering for the deck, it would be an open, presumably at the same grade level as the current stoop. Boardmember Long wanted to know if the deck was not coverered, would it still count as encroachment. Beals clarified, previously stoops were not counted as an encroachment into the setback, but now that it’s attached to the primary building it’s considered part of the structure and needs to meet setbacks Boardmember Meyer asked about the material used, if the proposed new structure was a concrete or brick porch, would that still require a building permit and need to meet the setback? Beals explained there are still requirements if the concrete was attached to the house, then it would be considered part of the structure. If the deck was stand alone and below a certain grade, that may not require a permit. Applicant Presentation: Al Curtis, architect, addressed the board. Mr. Curtis has previously completed work for these owners, and they contacted him stating their concrete steps were starting to crack and settle. The house faces west and there is an open greenspace across the street. The couple would like a front porch to enjoy the sunsets and enjoy comradery among neighbors. When designing this deck, they opted not to move utilities to save expenses. The new deck will be the same height as the existing, 2-3 steps above grade, and same height as entering the front door on the NW corner. Not anticipating a pergola or anything else at this point. Materials will be manmade materials, pressure treated lumber. Covenants in the area mandate that all trim must be white. Boardmember LaMastra asked if there would be any railings on the deck. Mr. Curtis explained there are no railings, if they start putting railings or planters, you limit the space available when there is only 6 feet in width. Boardmember Stockover asked about the Code requirements for railings. Beals explained building code states if the deck is 30 inches off the ground you would need a railing. Mr. Curtis confirmed this is well under 30 inches. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember LaMastra stated this is not extending any further than the existing stoop, and she’s supportive of getting more people in the front of their homes to socialize and build community. Boardmember Long agreed this fits the definition of nominal and inconsequential. Motion: Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190014 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing stoop encroaches into setback 6 feet, the proposed deck is open on three sides, the proposed deck does not include a covering. 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. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 6. APPEAL ZBA190015 – APPROVED Address: 1250 E. Magnolia Street Owner: Walmart Real Estate Business Petitioner: Cathy Yockey Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B Project Description: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 April 11, 2019 This is a request for an 8 feet high wall sign where 7 feet is the maximum height permitted. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This is for a sign on an existing Wal-Mart building. Apartments are just north of this property. This request is to replace the existing sign that is currently on the building. In reviewing the sign permit request, it was revealed that the sign was originally issued in error. The letter heights are in compliance, it is the logo that exceeds the 7 foot maximum. Boardmember Stockover asked about compliance, only the symbol would need to shrink in size to be 7 feet in order to comply with standards. The only issue is sign height, not width. Boardmember Meyer confirmed the proposed sign will be exactly the same as the current non- confirming sign. The city was not aware the sign was out of compliance until this request. Boardmember McCoy requested additional information regarding sign code for an exterior sign along a street. Beals explained they do have a certain amount of signage square feet based on their frontage to public right of way. They can divide that square footage among all exterior signage. They do not exceed that limit right now. There are still limitations on the different types of signs – height, location, etc. The only issue for this sign is the height limitation. Applicant Presentation: Carol Wolfley with Schlosser Signs addressed the board on behalf of the applicant. After speaking with the architect, it sounds like the builder of the signs uses a framework. In order to decrease the size of the symbol, they would have to build a whole new framework for this one sign. That would cause a hardship for the applicant. Boardmember Stockover confirmed this is a lighted sign and it will go over the exact same footprint. Nothing is changing, the sign is just aged and faded and there is some damage to the sign. Boardmember Meyer asked if there is an option for the applicant to replace just the Wal-Mart portion and leave the symbol. Beals explained this issue would not go away now that we know it’s out of compliance. Boardmember LaMastra confirmed with the applicant there is no new technology with this update. Boardmember Shields asked if shrinking the symbol would mean the letters would shrink as well. Applicant stated that it would be scalable and the sign as a whole would shrink. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmembre LaMastra stated this is just two little pieces of the symbol that are each roughly 6 inches over in size. This is not discernable from a distance. If the letters themselves were over 8 feet there would be more concern. Boardmember Stockover explained part of the reason he asked if the sign is going to change shape, is when a building use changes there is concern over the all the holes in the brick. Aesthetically making this comply could make it look worse. Boardmember Shields agreed. Boardmember Long agreed with nominal and inconsequential reasoning. Long does appreciate that the staff report is for denial because the sign code needs to be more consistent. Motion: Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve ZBA190015 on the basis that the 1 foot increase on the asterisk/logo of the sign is nominal and inconsequential, and therefore is not a detriment to the Land Use Code. Boardmember Long offered a friendly amendment stating this is not detrimental to the public good, that amendment was accepted. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Stockover, LaMastra, Shields, Meyer, Long Nays: None. The Motion was carried. Break at 10:15, call to order at 10:20. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 April 11, 2019 • OTHER BUSINESS Eileen Dornfest and Amy House from utilities presented on the Halligan Water Supply Project. They showed a short video and a few slides. More information can be found at fcgov.com/halligan. • ADJOURNMENT at 10:38 a.m. Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 9, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 227 West Street Owner/Petitioner: Tim LeRoy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (D) (3) Variance Request: The variance is for a single-family home and accessory building at 227 West Street to exceed allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot by 671.61 square feet with a total of 1965.36 square feet proposed on the rear half. The overall allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot is 1293.75 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U This property is a part of the Capital Hill subdivision. The original primary structure was built approximately prior to 1921. The primary structure was originally constructed in the rear half of the lot. An accessory building was also constructed in the back accessing from the alley. This accessory building was removed. The lot is 7,841 square feet in size. In the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zone district the allowable floor area for a lot this size with a detached accessory building is 3,210.25 square feet. The allowable floor area in the rear half is 1293.75 square feet. The total proposed floor area for the over all lot is within the allowed amount. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the increase floor area of 671.61 square feet Uwith the condition that the accessory structure does not exceed the height of the existing primary structure (14.5’)U: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The existing house sits entirely in the rear half of the lot. • An accessory structure existed in the rear lot before. • The proposed floor area does not exceed what is allowed for the entire lot. Therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA190016. 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 __________________________________________ 227 West St 80521 2497 NW Newport Hills Bend, OR, 97703 Tim LeRoy 312.451.7679 D:3 (Floor area on rear 50% of lot) tim.leroy@gmail.com NCM, Division 4.8 See additional explanation 4/1/19 1. Hardship Additional Justification Additional Justification If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 227 West St Variance Application - Additional Background We’re seeking a variance on the the section of the zoning regulations for District 4.8 that states the floor area must not exceed 33% of the rear 50% of the lot. Our lot is 7841 Sq ft, and as drawn, the additions to the existing structure would put the total floor area on the rear 50% at 1772 sq ft. That puts us over the allowed limit for the floor area on the rear of our lot by 479 Sq ft. The existing structure (a 750 sq ft cottage, in need of some serious improvement) is situated on the rear of the lot next to a concrete pad that’s ideal for a garage. The plans we’re putting before you, which add square footage adjacent to the existing structure on the rear of the lot, seemed to us like the best and most logical way to go. Alternatives would require the combination of a really long skinny hallway to get more of the addition onto the front of the lot (which seems quite wasteful) and likely eliminating part of the two-car garage structure. More importantly though, if we were to add this long hallway to get to the front of the lot we would also then lose much of our front yard, and with two small kids, we’re hoping to keep as much contiguous open space on the lot as we can. There’s no way to do a backyard given the existing structure so, keeping the front yard is our only way to do that. We very much understand the city’s preference for backyards as opposed to front yards in this area, but most of all we’d just like to have A yard, and this is really the only way to have one without tearing the existing building down and starting over (which also seems quite wasteful). I can’t speak for our neighbors, but I would think this plan is preferable from their perspective as well. There are several other homes on the block with this same front-yard lot configuration, so it won’t be out of character and I would assume our immediate neighbors would prefer to look out their windows onto a yard instead of into our home. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. We appreciate that rules and codes exist for a reason and we wouldn’t be approaching you if we didn’t honestly believe that this was the best option for us and our new neighbors. Sincerely, Tim LeRoy UP UP DESK CLOSET POWDER PANTRY KITCHEN FR/FZ DINING LIVING ENTRY COVERED ENTRY PATIO 747 EXITING HOUSE SQ.FT. GARAGE 452 SQ.FT. BENCH HOOKS EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN 26' - 7 25/32" 32' - 8 13/32" EXISTING HOUSE 19' - 4 3/32" 25' - 7 23/32" 6' - 11 3/8" 14' - 11 3/8" 17' - 8 9/32" 30' - 6" 9' - 0" ***DETACHED GARAGE 10' FROM HOUSE*** 1149 NEW MAIN LEVEL SQ.FT. 10' - 6" 5' - 0" BENCH HOOKS MECH. 2' - 11 19/32" 4' - 11" 9' - 6" 3' - 6" 11' - 0" 10' - 6" 4' - 0" 3' - 6" 3' - 0" 6' - 0" 4' - 7 1/2" 5' - 7 1/2" 3' - 0" 3' - 11 5/16" 19' - 11 5/16" 4' - 5 3/8" 6' - 0" 10' - 0 11/16" 5' - 6 1/2" 15' - 11 15/16" 7' - 3" 13' - 4 23/32" 4' - 5 1/2" 4' - 1 3/4" 10' - 1 13/16" 2' - 11 9/32" 16' - 10 3/8" 20' - 11 5/16" 10' - 1 11/16" 22' - 0" 20' - 6" 10' - 6" THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO DN DN 19' - 6" TOTAL HOUSE = 2943 SQ.FT. ***CEILING HEIGHT 7'5"*** UNFINISHED SPACE 20' - 6" EXISTING HOUSE 24' - 8" MASTER BATH CLOSET MASTER 11' - 0" 20' - 2 1/2" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL 595 SQ.FT. 6' - 9 1/2" 6' - 0" 8' - 4 7/16" 15' - 11 1/2" 3' - 5 1/2" 3' - 6" 7' - 8" 9' - 8 3/16" 10' - 3 1/16" 3' - 6" 4' - 0" 22' - 0" 4' - 2" 4' - 0" 4' - 7" 21' - 0" 25' - 8 1/32" 31' - 0 11/16" 2943 - 250 (FIRST 250 SQ.FT. OF ACCESSORY BUILDING) = 2,693 SQ.FT. 595 + 452 + 747 + 1149 = 2943 SQ.FT. THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS A3 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:49 AM CURRENT SET DATE UPPER LEVEL ADDRESS LEROY 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 UPPER LEVEL EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN PAINT TO MATCH NEW ADDITION 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 18' - 6" 14' - 6 1/16" 9' - 0" 26' - 7 25/32" CEILING HEIGHT ABOVE GARAGE IS 7'5" 7' - 5" 8' - 6" 0' - 6" 8' - 6" 25' - 0 23/32" 31' - 0 3/16" 5' - 6" 25.33' MAX HEIGHT 25.33' MAX HEIGHT 24' GARAGE MAX HEIGHT 16' - 8 11/16" 10' - 6" 20' - 6" 1' - 4" 0' - 10" 0' - 10" PROPERTY LINE REAR SET BACK 5' - 6" 30' - 6" 26' - 7 25/32" 10' - 0" 21' - 0" 1' - 6 9/16" 5' - 0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN PAINT TO MATCH NEW ADDITION 6" / 1'-0" 19' - 4 3/32" 37' - 9 11/16" 5' - 6" 19' - 0" 25' - 6 23/32" 14' - 6 1/16" CEILING HEIGHT ABOVE GARAGE IS 7'5" 20' - 6" 10' - 6" 26' - 1 25/32" 10' - 0 11/16" 20' - 11 1/2" 5' - 0" 1' - 6 9/16" 20' - 6" 10' - 6" 19' - 4 3/32" 6' - 9 11/16" 10' - 0 11/16" 6' - 8 5/16" 7' - 3" 7' - 0" 5' - 6" 3' - 6" 16' - 8 11/16" PROPERTY LINE REAR SET BACK 24' - 0" 25.33' MAX HEIGHT 24' GARAGE MAX HEIGHT 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 3' - 0" THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS A4 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:51 AM CURRENT SET DATE ELEVATIONS ADDRESS 6" / 1'-0" 18' - 6" 25' - 0 23/32" 7' - 2" 8' - 6" 18' - 6" 25' - 0 23/32" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 7' - 2" 25' - 8" 0' - 10" 0' - 10" 8' - 6" 0' - 6" 1' - 7 17/32" EXISTING HOUSE SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK 1' - 0" 2' - 0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 25.33' MAX HEIGHT 25.33' MAX HEIGHT 0' - 10" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 8196.56 6" / 1'-0" 8' - 6" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" EXISTING HOUSE 24' - 0" 22' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 3 3/8" 22' - 0" 10' - 8 19/32" 5' - 0" 16' - 8 11/16" 16' - 8 11/16" 7' - 2" 24' GARAGE MAX HEIGHT 24' - 0" 13' - 0" 1' - 0" 0' - 6" THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS A5 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:53 AM CURRENT SET DATE ELEVATIONS ADDRESS LEROY 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WEST DN 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 5' - 0" 15' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5" / 1'-0" 5" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" ALLEY REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK FRONT SETBACK 4' - 6 15/16" EXISTING HOUSE EDGE OF EXTERIOR WALL FOR NEW ADDITION EDGE OF EXTERIOR WALL FOR NEW ADDITION 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" 0' - 10 9/16" 0' - 7 5/8" ROOF OVERHANG ROOF OVERHANG EXISTING CONCRETE PATH 0' - 11 9/32" 0' - 6 23/32" ROOF OVERHANG 6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0" THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS C1 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:53 AM CURRENT SET DATE SITE PLAN ADDRESS LEROY OWNER: LEROY FAMILY LOT 3 BLOCK 322 227 WEST ST. FORT COLLINS, CO SITE PLAN & GRADING NOTES: 1. 5% FINAL GRADE SLOPE AWAY 6" FROM BUILDING FOR 10' MIN. 2. STEEP GRADES 2:1+ REQUIRE ENGINEERING AS TO SOIL STABILITY. 3. RETAINING WALLS HIGHER THAN 4' TO BE ENGINEERED. 4. TOP OF FOUNDATION WALLS TO BE 6" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE. 5. FOR DRIVEWAY LESS THAN 100', FIRST 20' 10% OR LESS. 6. FOR DRIVEWAY MORE THAN 100', FIRST 20' 5% OR LESS. 7. MAX. ALLOWED GRADE OF 12% FOR UP TO 250', 10% MAX REMAINING. UP UP 5' - 0" 15' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK FRONT SETBACK REAR 50% 77' - 8 19/32" 462 SQ.FT. 984 SQ.FT. REAR 50% 77' - 11 15/32" 168 (2) = 336 SQ.FT. WITH SECOND FLOOR ABOVE TOTAL REAR 50% SQ.FT. = 1,772' SQ.FT. 50' - 0 7/16" 155' - 8 1/8" 336' + 984' + 452' = 1,772' THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS C2 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:53 AM CURRENT SET DATE 50% REAR DIAGRAM ADDRESS LEROY 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 50% REAR LOT DIAGRAM UP UP 1 A5 A4 2 A5 2 A4 1 5' - 0" 5' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE 15' - 0" 5' - 0" REMOVE TREE EXISTING TREES REMAIN EXISTING PATH TO REMAIN NEW PATIO NEW PATIO NEW PATIO GRASS TO REMAIN GRASS TO REMAIN EXISTING CONCRETE TO REMAIN ADD CONCRETE IN FRONT OF GARAGE THE USE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION THEROF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS C3 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:54 AM CURRENT SET DATE LANDSCAPE PLAN ADDRESS LEROY 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 9, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1420 Banyan Dr Owner/Petitioner: Mike & Angie Sweeney Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4 (D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance is to construct a sunroom at 1420 Banyan Dr, which encroaches 3 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U This property was part of the Overland trail 1994 Annexation. It was platted for development a year later as part of the Ponds at Overland Trail. The original subdivision included 18 single family lots that abutted the detention pond. The detention pond area is over 500 feet in width and abuts and is bound by public right of way on the other sides. 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 variance to allow a 3 feet encroachment into the rear-yard setback and finds that: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The additional HOA owned detention pond immediately behind the property provides enough separation to meet a rear-yard 15’ setback. • The addition is a single story sun room. 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 ZBA190017. DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2.10 - VARIANCES (BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS) . . . 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 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW (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 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. 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. 2.10.24 Variance Review Procedures . . . (F) Step 6 (Notice): For variances reviewed by the Director and by the Zoning Board of Appeals Ssubsection 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that a variance reviewed by the Director shall mail written notice (14) days prior to the decision instead of the hearing/meeting date and for variances reviewed by both the Director and the Zoning Board of Appeals, “eight hundred (800) feet” shall be changed to “one hundred fifty (150) feet,” and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for variance requests for: . . . (G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable, and in substitution for Section 2.2.7(A), the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code, 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. Step 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. Step 7(B)—(C) and (E)—(G)(1) Director Review Only (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings as Public Hearing): Not applicable. DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW 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. (H) 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: . . . (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Any variance which 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 obtained; provided, however, that for good cause shown, the Director Zoning Board of Appeals 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 obtaining all necessary permits under a variance exceed twelve (12) months in length. One (1) six-month extension may be granted by the Director Zoning Board of Appeals. (L) Step 12 (Appeals): (1) 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 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 pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (2) Applicable to variances reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of ____, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of _____, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this _____ day of ____, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk From: Paul Patterson <plpatterson3@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 9:31 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: language for code revision item 1105 Hello Noah, Thanks to you and the other folks involved for working on this. I think this is a good solution. Regards, Paul From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:27 AM To: Paul Patterson; Ted Shepard Subject: RE: language for code revision item 1105 Hello Paul, It has been in the “legal shop”. We received the attachment this morning. We did adjust the Notice requirement requiring a 14 day notice prior to the decision. Let us know if you have more questions. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Paul Patterson <plpatterson3@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 9:12 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>; Ted Shepard <TSHEPARD@fcgov.com> Subject: language for code revision item 1105 Hi Noah and Ted, The agenda material on the code versions doesn't include the proposed language for the LUC. Are they still in the legal shop? What I am interested is whether the no notification in item 1105 is still being contemplated. Thanks, Paul 8. DRIVEWAY STAKING & PROPERTY CORNER INSPECTION PRIOR TO RECEIVING BUILDING PERMIT. 9. PIPE MAY BE REQUIRED IN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR NATURAL DRAINABE TO OCCUR (12" MIN) DETERMINED AT STAKING POSITION. 10. SOIL BEARING CAPACITY TO BE VERIFIED AT START OF EXCAVATION AND PRIOR TO START OF FOOTING PLACEMENT. ELECTRICAL SERVICE: 1. SERVICE SIZE TBD BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR 2. UNDERGROUND SERVICE TO WALL - MOUNTED METER 3. 24" MIN. BURY OF 3" ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 4. 270 DEGREE MAX. SWEEPS 5. TOAL LINE LENGTH: TBD GAS SERVICE: 1. SYSTM SIZE TBD BY GAS LINE CONTRACTOR 2. METER IS 3' MIN FROM ELETRICAL METER 3. THE MAX. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL NOT EXCEED 10% GAS DEVICE BTU RATINGS: 1. SEE MECHANICAL SITE MITIGATION PLAN: 1. CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMPLETE IN 12 MONTHS OR LESS 2. HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 7AM TO SUNSET, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. 3. HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 7AM TO SUNSET, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. 4. SITE CLEAN-UP TO BE PERFORMED DAILY. 5. TRASH AND OTHER DEBRIS MAY NOT ACCUMULATE OUTSIDE THE DUMPSTER. 6. NOISE LEVEL SHALL BOT EXCEED 65 DECIBELS. CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION: 1. MUD CONTROL AND STREET MAINTENANCE AS FOLLOWS: A. MUD TRACKED ONTO THE STREET MUST BE CLEANED UP PRIOR TO THE END OF THE WORK DAY. B. TRUCKS WILL ONLY BE LOADED WHILE PARKED ON PAVEMENT OR CLEAN GRAVEL. C. THE ENTIRE DRIVE TO BE GRAVELED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE MUD ON STREETS. 2. ALL MATERIALS TO BE LOADED INTO OR NEXT TO DRIVEWAY. 3. ALL DIRT STORED ON SITE WILL BE KEPT WITHIN THE L.O.D.. PARKING: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TO PARK IN DESIGNATED AREAS AND NOT ON STREET WITHOUT PROPER APPROVAL. 2. VEHICLES NOT TO BE LEFT ON SITE OVERNIGHT. DELIVERIES: 1. DELIVERIES SHALL BE MADE ONLY DURING WORK HOURS. SIGNAGE: 1. THERE SHALL BE A SIGN ON SITE PLACED WITHIN BUILDING ENVELOPE SHOWING THE CONTRACTORS NAME AND PHONE NUMBER, ARCHITECTS NAME AND NUMBER AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTICULAR JOB LOCATION BY EITHER HOMESITE ADDRESS OR HOMESITE OWNER'S NAME. 2. THE SIGN SHALL NOT EXCEED (6) SF AND NOT (4) FT FROM GRADE. CONSTRUCTION & SILT FENCE: 1. CONSTRUCTION FENCE LENGTH: TBD 2. SILT FENCE LENGTH: TBD L.F. (PLACED ON DOWNHILL SLOPE) 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SITE PLAN LEROY 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH SUCH USE. RE-USE, RE-PRODUCTION, AND PUBLICATION BY ANY PERSON AND/OR INSTITUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AS PROVIDED BY COPY WRIGHT LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THESE PLANS CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. REVISIONS A1 4/PRINTED15/2019 10:07:49 AM CURRENT SET DATE LOWER LEVEL ADDRESS LEROY 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 MAIN LEVEL