Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2019 - 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 OCTOBER 10, 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 ZBA190039 Address: 806 W. Mulberry Street Owner/Petitioner: Kevin Dewlen Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3); 4.8(D)(3); 4.8(F)(1)(c) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building (garage with carport). The request requires the following three variances: 1) Allow an accessory building to encroach 7.29 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. 2) Allow the floor area in rear half of the lot to total 1,062 square feet, the maximum allowed floor area is 907.5 square feet. 3) Allow an accessory building to be 1.12 feet less than the required 10 foot minimum front setback, greater than the front setback of the principle building. 2. APPEAL ZBA190040 Address: 310 N. Mason Street Owner: Rich Mark Petitioner: Chad Hartoin Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(E) Table C Project Description: The variance request is to allow window signs to exceed the permitted area a sign can cover in a window and to exceed the allowed overall height sign. The request proposes to cover 100% of the 2 sections of windows in vinyl signage when the code allows only allows up to 50% coverage. Additionally, a window sign cannot exceed 7 feet in height, the proposed signs are an additional 2 feet 3 inches taller sign than the maximum sign height. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 October 10, 2019 3. APPEAL ZBA190041 Address: 1201 W Plum Street Owner: Plum Street CO Owners LLC Petitioner: Timothy Eunice Zoning District: C-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B Project Description: The variance request is to allow 5 existing non-conforming flush wall sign cabinets to be replaced with new cabinets, the maximum allowed is 1. The proposed replacement signs are 3.5 feet, the maximum height allowed is 1.5 feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA190042 Address: 4030 Big Dipper Drive Owner/Petitioner: Tyler Shurigar Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a 192 square foot accessory building to be built 12 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback. A similar variance request was approved in 2015 but expired after 6 months. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, 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 Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the August 8, 2019 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190035 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this lot has a unique almost L-shape. There is an existing house on the property that already sits on the front setback. Originally this was built in the county and annexed in afterwards. Beals has spoken with the engineering department, and currently there are no plans for a capital expansion project to widen this road. However, this could always happen at a later date. Any buildings placed directly on the property ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 September 12, 2019 line make it difficult to widen city streets in the future. There is only one driveway access, shared with the property to the south. There is also a request to get an additional driveway access to the north of the building. If the board approves this request, staff recommends at least a 5-foot setback along Shields as it’s extremely difficult to add street improvements when structures are located along the property line. Meyer asked if there are any other structures in close proximity to Shields in this area. Beals replied other structures are not as close to the property line in the immediate vicinity. Meyer inquired if the location of the existing house will cause issues if there is a future expansion. Beals says it is a possibility. Shields asked about adding a sidewalk along this property. Capital Improvements look at the whole context of the street and are as sensitive as possible in these situations. McCoy requested clarification regarding the lot line to the north, the right of way is inconsistent. Beals replied that this happens all over town. As properties develop and the right of way is requested afterwards, this requires developers to add improvements. This house hasn’t had any development since annexation and therefore no opportunity to declare the right of way. Applicant Presentation: Fay, Dale and Tessa Baker, 5109 S. Shields Street, addressed the board. Fay Baker explained there is an irrigation ditch along the southwestern side of the home, therefore the only area to expand is in the northeast corner. The neighbor to the south is a historic milking parlor, that structure would also be located in the setback. Vice Chair LaMastra requested clarification on the use of this addition and the request for additional access off of Shields. Tessa Baker explained the addition is simply to add more square footage, the house is currently 1200 square feet and was built in 1920. After renovations, only the shell of the house is original. The access is being requested because there is no other way to get onto the property due to the ditch and fencing. Currently there is no car access, only foot bridges. The additional access would be for emergency vehicles; the owners would still use the bridges to access the house. When the property was annexed in 1989 only the minimum was left as their property. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Mccoy asked if there is a typical setback during an annexation. Beals explained for building structures, the setback in the Urban Estate zone is 30 feet. McCoy would like more information on the difference in lot lines among the properties. Beals estimated that the ultimate right of way will be from property line to property line on either side of Shields. The city obtains additional right of way when properties develop or get replatted. Right of way area is requested afterwards, this has not yet been replatted. If that happens in the future, the property owner will be required to dedicate the additional right of way. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the structure along the east property line. Tessa Baker confirmed this was an old porch, that was previously enclose and is currently part of the great room. The front door is on the south side of the house. Chair Shields questioned how many lanes are currently on Shields at this location and how much space is present between the property line and the curb. Beals believes this is one lane in both directions with a middle turn lane. There is vegetation between the edge of asphalt and the property line. Applicant confirmed that the road drops off along this edge. Vice Chair LaMastra requested the proximity of this property to the growth management area on the south side of Fort Collins. Beals doesn’t have that already mapped to give exact distance, will follow up. Stockover has past experience with a homestead on a dirt road, built with no property setbacks. The first property to develop on each side of the road establishes the setback at the current road standard. The first one to develop sets the edge for that side, leaving the other side at a disadvantage. This is part of the natural progression of growth. In the future if Shields is expanded to be 4 lanes wide, then the City will either buy the property or imminent domain the whole house. All utilities will be underground, which will not affect the height of the wall at the property line. However, overhanging eve height is a concern. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 September 12, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra questioned the final grade after Shields is widened. Could the finished floor elevation potentially be below a sidewalk elevation. Discussion regarding the natural progression of widening the street. Vice Chair LaMastra pointed out if the board allows this addition and the City ends up having to purchase this property, then there is an additional burden placed on the City regarding how much is paid to the land owners. Beals followed up on the location of the growth management area, explaining that is still pretty far south of Trilby. Chair Shields explained he has a strong hesitation to put any structure directly on the property line. He agreed with the concern of the eave location and drainage from the roof. Typically an eave is not past 30 inches from the house. Shields would suggest a three foot setback at a minimum. Shuff agreed with Stockover, whatever happens will happen regardless of their decision today. The eave directly on the property line would be challenging to work with, he would be in support of a 2 to 3 foot setback. Meyer agreed with the concern of the overhang. Stockover referred to the aerial view. If Shields is expanded, it could still remain two lanes with bike paths, or it could be expanded to 4 lanes which would create a bigger issue. Discussion confirming this is a one story addition, not two stories. Vice Chair LaMastra is not sure that a setback of 5 feet or 3 feet accomplishes anything for the final solution. If the final build out is a 4 lane arterial street with a sidewalk directly next to the window of their house, this is problematic for the condition and the grades. This will be a problem no matter what. Discussion regarding the motion and approval process of the addition. Discussion regarding the wall along the right of way, and that it does not need to be upgraded regarding fire rating. Chair Shields reiterated that he does not want to see the addition built on the property line. If the foundation is laid incorrectly that would cause new problems. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA190035 for the following reasons, the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, it is nominal and inconsequential in context of the neighborhood, the existing house already sits 0 feet to the front setback and 15 feet to the side setback, the addition is 21 feet in length along the 130 foot 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. Also, this house was built in 1920, before the need for a right of way was established, and we are not setting a precedence as there are numerous examples like this throughout the city. The city has the ability to acquire easements and setbacks as streets oversize. With the condition that no part of the building overhangs the property line including the eave structure or water downspouts. Yeas: Shuff, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: Meyer, LaMastra and Shields. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS. The Chair allowed the applicant to address the board again. Dale Baker explained there is already the established line of the house and to extend that line does not make any difference. They are not going further into the setback. Chair Shields asked the applicant if they know how they would keep the overhang inside the property line. Mr. Baker responded they would first need to understand where the property line is located, then they would work from that line. This could be done with zero overhang or a gutter along the edge. Tessa Baker explained they do all their own work on the house and pull all their own permits, as they try to update the remodeling from 1970. They know the process of obtaining the survey, having pins established and ensuring they do not go over the lines. A foot or two makes a big difference in a tiny house. Chair Shields stated if the applicant is confident they can achieve what they need and not go over the property line, he could support this. Vice Chair LaMastra pointed out this is a right of way property line, not a side yard. She acknowledge that there is an existing structure, but approval would mean continuing to compound a situation along the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 September 12, 2019 Shuff would support a condition of a setback 18 inches to 2 feet. This makes sense for the cost of construction and allows for some room for a gutter. The impact is minimal. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA190035 with the following findings: the variance with condition is not detrimental to the public good, the existing house already sits 0 feet off the front setback and 15 feet to the side setback, the addition is 21 feet in length along the 130 foot width of the front property line, most of 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, the finding that we are not setting a precedence as this occurs throughout the city as streets oversize and capital improvement projects come forth and with the condition that the entire addition is a minimum of 12 inches from property line. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. 2. APPEAL ZBA190036 – CONTINUED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner property. The rear setback is the shared property line abutting the neighbor’s side setback. Most properties along this block have a 20 foot setback because it is their front setback. If board is in favor of the setbacks, staff recommends to maintain the 15 foot setback along Sunstone, more flexibility can be granted for the rear setback. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned if as a PUD it has been verified that the owner is allowed to take more than one access onto their property from 2 different right of ways. Beals did consult the City’s engineering department and it would be permissible at this point, especially with the rollover curb present. There is also a specified distance the driveways must be located from the intersection. Applicant Presentation: Captain & Kathleen Payne, 2307 Stonegate Drive, addressed the board. Currently, Mr. Payne has a shop in his garage and no room for a vehicle. Since living in this house they have had considerable vehicle maintenance cost from hail damage, pine sap, sprinkler system and winter conditions. They cannot move the garage closer to the house, because the air conditioning unit and all utilities are located on that side of the house. Ms. Payne said at the time they submitted the plan, they were not sure if they would prefer a carport or garage. After speaking with the neighbors, some indicated they would prefer a garage and that is now their proposal. If the proposal is not approved, they would be forced to do something more temporary and less desired by the neighborhood. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are meters on that side of the house. Applicant confirmed the same. The city has confirmed that the clearances proposed are acceptable. Meyer questioned why the applicant would not clear out the shop top be used for vehicles and build a new shop that meets required setbacks. The applicant replied the shop would be too small and would cost a lot more money. Chair Shields asked about pivoting the lower right corner of the structure to meet 15 foot setback. The applicant thinks it would look weird at that angle and there is a large tree nearby. Also, the garage would be too small. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated this seems nominal and inconsequential. She acknowledged the placement of the garage regarding utilities and stated this appears to be the smallest size of structure while still being functional. The adjacent neighbor supports the garage and it will be aesthetically Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 September 12, 2019 consistent. Her concern and proposed condition is to verify multiple access points are allowed onto a single lot. Beals received an email the night prior, which he read into the record. Ben James, 2242 Stonegate Drive, supports the variance as a garage but not as a carport. Vice Chair LaMastra asked the applicant about the roof as it appears flat on the elevation. Mr. Payne confirmed the garage roof will be pitched and it would match the house. Stockover stated the construction of this garage changes the character of the neighborhood. It flies against City Plan and the continuity of the neighborhood. The car conditions are not an applicable reason for this approval. The current garage being taken up by their own business is a self-imposed hardship. Even though the neighbors have been notified, they might not fully understand how this will change the neighborhood. Mr. Payne was allowed to address the board, and stated the neighbors behind him in a cul-de-sac also have a detached garage and there are a couple more examples in the area. Stockover added before he can be supportive of this proposal he would need to see architectural drawings. A carport can be taken down, a garage cannot. This addition can truly change the character of the neighborhood, especially on a corner lot. In addition, the proximity to tree roots needs to be a concern. Meyer asked about the maximum allowable square footage on this lot. Beals replied this is not like the conservation zone districts, here it is one third of the lot size. The definition of floor area excludes the first 720 square feet of vehicle use or storage. They are not exceeding their limit even with this garage. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the submittal is not a clear representation of what is being proposed. Seeing elevations that include how the pitch of the roof works with the current house would be helpful. Shuff was not as concerned about the rear yard setback, more concerned with the front. There is an impact from the urban street edge stand point. There is a challenge with the dimensions of the current garage and location of utilities, but there is also a setback requirement and not enough evidence to justify this encroachment. Chair Shields agreed. It does become difficult to approve something that is lacking in detail. Typically for garages there is a 20 foot setback to keep the car off the sidewalk. Shields would prefer to see the garage meet the setback requirements or see more detail. Stockover would like to confirm driveway requirements as well. No boardmembers were willing to make a motion to approve. Stockover asked the applicant if he would like the opportunity to come in front of the board again with a more detailed application. Mr. Payne confirmed he would. He also stated that he spoke with neighbors, they were all in support of the garage. Boardmembers provided guidance on what they are looking for during the hearing. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to continue ZBA190036 to a future hearing and ask that the applicant bring more detailed architectural drawings. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED. 3. APPEAL ZBA190037 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: *Note, Boardmember Shuff recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 September 12, 2019 Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this lot corners N. Grant and an alley. Where the addition would be located, the abutting lot that shares this property line has a side-setback as opposed to a rear setback. There is an existing structure that would be removed to make room for this addition. Proposed addition does not exceed the floor area required for the overall lot or for the rear half. Therefore, the only item to address is the setback. This lot is approximately 4900 square feet, which is less than the minimum required lot size of 5000 square feet. Applicant Presentation: Heidi Shuff, with Studio S Architecture, addressed the board. The goal of the project is to change the existing house as little as possible, and to enlarge the kitchen and living room, and create a new dining room and master suite off the back. Due to the current layout, adding onto the south side would block all the natural light from the living space. The neighboring property to the west enjoys a 5 foot setback that is also the homeowners rear property line. The existing sunroom that is to be removed already encroaches within the 15 foot rear yard setback. This addition would add an additional 3 feet 3 inches onto what is already existing. This is still well within the total allowable square footage for the lot. This is a one story addition and the neighboring properties are also one story. Matt Fater, 207 N. Grant Avenue, addressed the board. He has lived at this residence for 17 years, would like this addition to continue residing there for another 10-20 years. This is a modest addition relative to the allowable square footage on the property. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated the challenges when one lot has a rear yard abutting a side yard. There is no adjacent structure present and it makes sense to not expand to the south given the house layout. Meyer considered this a thoughtful proposal. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190037 for the following reasons, this is not detreimental to the public good, the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area for the overall lot or rear half, the addition is a one story matching the existing structure as well as the adjacent structures, and the abutting west property line has a 5 foot setback from the shared property line, therefore this 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 which is contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED. 4. APPEAL ZBA190038 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a unique shaped lot. Part of the alleyways surrounding the lot have been vacated causing a longer lot size with a slight jog in the back, giving the property alley access into the side lot line as opposed to the rear lot line. The accessory building being proposed would be used for a garage and habitable space above. The eave height would normally be 10 or 13 feet, but they are looking to increase that eave height based on how the building is pitched. They would like a higher eave height that is facing both the north and south (side) property lines. Also with accessory buildings that have habitable space, the code encourages no windows or decks looming into side property lines. If the board is proposing approval, staff recommends a condition that the windows be limited to a clear story Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 September 12, 2019 window, higher in nature, that allows sunlight to enter but does not give the gazing affect onto the abutting property. Applicant Presentation: Massey Brooks with Smash Design, architect representing the petitioner, addressed the board. They have made every effort to maintain code standards and the intent of the code within this unique situation. The side yard with alley access requires a unique design solution to fit a car and have space above. The windows on the south side facing the alley, require an egress window with escape capability which looks directly down the alley and not into any neighboring property. The window on the north side is in a bathroom and has to be large enough to vent properly. If the window has to be a clear story, they request that it’s a translucent window as opposed to clear window. Their priority is ease of access in case of an emergency. The top eave height along the perimeter of the roof is 13 foot 6 inches. Normally the standard is at the 5 foot side yard setback the height can be 13 feet, but for every one foot stepped back from the setback you can go up an additional 6 inches, which is why the eave is at 13 feet 6 inches. The only deviation from that is the gable end, that is required due to the unique shape of the lot and where the garage door must be located. Chair Shields asked for clarity regarding the ventilation requirement in the bathroom. Mr. Brooks spoke to the code requirements of a mechanical ventilation system versus window ventilation. Stockover mentioned when the window is open it is no longer translucent. McCoy asked how this space is being used above the garage. Mr. Brooks replied this is additional living space, likely an air B&B, which is allowed in this zoning district. Boardmembers spoke about the option of a mechanical ventilation system, Mr. Brooks confirmed this is a possibility as well. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shuff asked about the recent code change regarding dormers on eave height. Beals confirmed the dormers are restricted to be a quarter of the length of the wall. Shuff pointed out this elevation is small in width. There are potentially other options, but they could have more impact. The elevation is small enough, Shuff has no problem with it. The window is a recommendation, but he would still prefer a high window. Shields agreed. LaMastra agreed with Stockover, this needs to be an operable clear story window or add a fan. Boardmember Shields made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve with condition ZBA190038, the condition being the fenestration on the north side of the structure is limited to a clear story window, and find that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the shorter width of the garage faces the side lot lines, the structure is set back beyond the minimum 5 foot side yard setback, the alley dedication and vacation left a unique shaped parcel, eave height varies from 13.5 to 16.78 feet, 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: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190039 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 806 W. Mulberry Street Petitioner/Owner: Kevin Dewlen Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3); 4.8(D)(3); 4.8(F)(1)(c) Variance Request: This is a request to build an accessory building (garage with carport). The request requires the following three variances: 1. Allow an accessory building to encroach 7.29 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. 2. Allow the floor area in rear half of the lot to total 1,062 square feet, the maximum allowed floor area is 907.5 square feet. 3. Allow an accessory building to be 1.12 feet less than the required 10 foot minimum front setback, greater than the front setback of the principle building. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a platted around 1887 as part of the Loomis Plat. The original lot extends all the way from the alley to Grant Ave. In time this lot was divided into two parcels. The east parcel is addressed off of Grant Ave and has had a structure on it since 1910. The west parcel (the subject property) is addressed on Mulberry and had a structure on it since 1939. The property faces and is addressed from Mulberry Street. This makes the front setback along the south property line and the rear setback along the north property line. The front and back half is split along the short end of the rectangle shaped parcel, resulting in a larger portion of the primary existing in the rear half. This configuration creates a shallow parcel. Additionally, the property to the north that shares the property has a 5ft side setback instead of a 15ft rear setback. 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. • The subdivision resulted in a shallow parcel. • The abutting property to the north is allowed a 5ft setback from the shared property line. • The proposed structure takes vehicle access from the alley. 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 of APPEAL ZBA190039. To whom it may concern: For 806 W Mulberry St with the front of the lot being oriented to Mulberry it presents a couple challenges that I appreciate your time in consideration for a variance. Lot SF- 5500 sf Existing House- 940 sf Max allowable buildable SF- 2375 sf Proposed Garage- 600 sf New proposed total lot build SF- 1540 sf (leaving 835 sf buildable lot sf) 1. With the lot-oriented length wise east to west a garage placement on the west end with entry off the alley makes the most sense on the narrow lot. Due to the house having a Mulberry address the rear setback of 15' is very limiting and the garage rear setback to the north property line would be very similar to the existing house. (hardship/ nominal inconsequential) 2. The lot midpoint (front/rear) almost bisects the existing house putting 640 sf of the existing 940 sf house in the rear half of the lot. By adding the garage, it would also be almost bisecting the structure putting 432 sf of the proposed 600sf structure in the rear half of the lot. This brings the rear lot total to 1,062 sf, which is over the allowed 907.5 sf allowed on the rear. (hardship/ nominal inconsequential) Thank you for your time, Kevin Dewlen 806 W Mulberry St. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190040 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 310 N. Mason Street Owner: Rich Mark Petitioner: Chad Hartoin Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(E) Table C Variance Request: The variance request is to allow window signs to exceed the permitted area a sign can cover in a window and to exceed the allowed overall sign height. The request proposes to cover 100% of the 2 sections of windows in vinyl signage when the code allows only allows up to 50% coverage. Additionally, a window sign cannot exceed 7 feet in height, the proposed signs are an additional 2 feet 3 inches taller than the maximum sign height. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property recently redeveloped in 2014. This development includes 108 dwelling units in a 5 story building. The street level contains several large storefront windows. These spaces are for the nonresidential uses in the building. The general purpose of sign standards include but are not limited to, preventing sign clutter. Such standards include limiting the number of signs, restricting the location, and limiting the size of signs. The variance request is for signs that have been installed. Window signs require a permit when they exceed 6 sf 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 UdenialU and finds that: • A 50% increase to the window sign area is not nominal or inconsequential, as the appearance of sign clutter increases when larger signs are closer to the public right of way. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard. • 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 Udenial Uof APPEAL ZBA190040. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190041 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1201 W. Plum Street Owner: Plum Street CO Owners LLC Petitioner: Timothy Eunice Zoning District: C-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B Variance Request: The variance request is to allow 5 existing non-conforming flush wall sign cabinets to be replaced with new cabinets, the maximum allowed is 1. The proposed replacement signs are 3.5 feet, the maximum height allowed is 1.5 feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property recently redeveloped in 2014. This development includes 194 dwelling units in a 5 story building. The development was approved as a mixed-use building. In time the space on the street level that was reserved for non-residential uses was converted to additional multi-family residential services. In between the time this building was originally constructed and now, the sign code was updated. In general side code standards are for the purpose to reduce sign clutter. Prior to the sign code update the building was issued a sign permit for wall signs that had a cabinet height of 4’ and letter height of 1.5’. Since the code the walls are limited to only along the frontage of the building that is along the public right of way. The existing signs are considered nonconforming. As such the existing signs could be refaced using the existing cabinet structure. However, if the structure of the sign is removed any new signage is required to comply with the current standards. 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 UdenialU and finds that: • An increase of 4 additional signs when the max is 1 is not nominal or inconsequential, as the appearance of sign clutter increases. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that would prevent a design to be in compliance with the standard. A nonconforming sign can be refaced. • 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 denial of APPEAL ZBA190041. Union on the Alley 09/12/2019 Reasoning of justification for the sign variance request for 1201 W. Plum Street: When we originally applied for the sign permit to replace the existing 5 ea. building cabinet signs it was done with the assumption that the existing signs met Fort Collins standards and had been previously permitted. It turned out that the existing signs are “non-conforming.” We were informed that according to current standards, the entire building would be allowed to have only 1 ea. sign and that it would be limited to 1-1/2’ in height. A sign of this size would be barely visible from ground level. We were further informed that we could replace just the faces of the signs as long as they matched the same exact shape and utilized the existing sign chassis. These signs have been on the building for several years and have obviously never been an issue. We are asking for a variance to allow us to replace the faces on the existing sign chassis in the rectangular shape of the UNION on the Alley branding as the shape of the LOKAL sign faces is reflective of their branding. With the many different student housing complexes in the area, it is important to the company investing in the building to have suitable branding. It is also important that the building have suitable identifying signage to allow for easy identification of tenants and guests. Granting of this variance will not change the existing situation in any material way. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190042 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4030 Big Dipper Drive Owner/Petitioner: Tyler Shurigar Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a 192 sq ft accessory building to be built 12 ft into the required 25 ft rear yard setback. A similar variance request was approved in 2015 but expired after 6 months. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U This property is part of the Old Oak Estates subdivision. At the time of the approval of the subdivision, the grading plan was not finalized for this and other lots. The Development Agreement required the grading plan for each lot be approved by Stormwater Utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Old Oak Estates plat did include the typical utility and drainage easements at the property lines along both Big Dipper Drive and Strauss Cabin Road. Before the building permit was issued for the house on this lot, the Stormwater Utility department did approve a 15” RCP storm-sewer to be placed on the property outside of the easement. The Urban Estate (U-E) zone district requires a .5 acre lot size for a single family dwelling. The allowable square feet for an accessory building in the U-E zone district on a .5 acre lot is 1,200 square feet. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends the approval of the variance request to allow a 192 square feet accessory building to be placed 12 feet into the required rear-yard setback, with the condition that the City’s Stormwater Department approves the location and the other improvements that have been shown on the site plan and finds that: • The typical .5 acre lot in the U-E does not include additional stormwater infrastructure outside of the drainage. • The primary structure was built closer to the rear of the property than the front property. • The existing grading increases the difficulty in finding a suitable location for an accessory building. Therefore, the variance request may be granted do to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190042. 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  Tyler Shurigar 4030 Big Dipper Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 August 21, 2019 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Old Oak Estates Lot 6 (4030 Big Dipper Drive); Fort Collins, Colorado Setback Variance Request Zoning Board of Appeals, Lot 6, Old Oak Estates (4030 Big Dipper Drive) is in the Urban Estate (UE) zoning district with the follow setback requirements: • Front setback of 30 feet • Side-yard setback of 20 feet • Rear-yard setback of 25 feet This is a request to reduce the North facing side-yard setback from twenty feet (20’) to ten feet (10’) to construct a twelve foot (12’) by sixteen foot (16’) garden storage shed on the North side of the existing home that would encroach on the current side-yard setback. This request is submitted due to the loss of usability of a substantial portion of the lot for storm drainage and water quality purposes, a majority of this storm drainage encumbrance is outside the easements. Another issue driving the request is that per the development agreement for the lot – I, (the homeowner) am responsible for the maintenance of the water quality structure existing on the Southeast corner of the lot. I believe the above mentioned circumstances meet the variance requirement of: 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 of the property or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act of omission of the occupant or applicant (i.e. not self imposed) I appreciate your consideration and time looking into this matter. Sincerely, Tyler Shurigar (!)a_ zu i=O::: (/)_ xin 25' EMERGENCY & PRIVATE ACCESS .& UTILITY ESMT. 12.50' @ SIDE n I Lot 5 -- PROPOSED SHED -- , er:, ---=�- I -+,) ! 0 i ...:I i I I I I I s/ i � I l -+,) I I � ! ...:I O I ! I iJ i ••• l J_ ;. e .--------,- � 1 == N II il '! l 4-CAR GARAGE . . __ ...;_. _� � Lot 6 8 �11 , 111 1" , . Ir \�\ , , \ . \ \ , I en I I\,�. , I ·\� •A . • , .. • . ••: ••• •- •• • • • BIG DIPPER DRIVE 42.00' R.-:0-W w II ...-3 � � w w � ------ -··· LEGEND � OLD OAK ESTATES PLANS DESIGN SPOT W/ELEVATION - DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW W/SLOPE ! £ SCALE: 1 •=30' CONTRACTOR: NoCO Custom Homes LLC Attn: Jason Jones 5225 White Willow Drive, A 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 Phone: (970} 223-5533 OWNER: SHURIGAR TYLER/HOPE 4030 BIG DIPPER DR. Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 SITE ADDRESS; 4030 Big Dipper Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Old Oak Estates Fort Collins, Colorado GRADING PLAN RETAINING WALL 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 4030 Big Dipper Drive 80528 4030 Big Dipper Drive Tyler Shurigar 303-588-5574 3.5.2 shurigar@gmail.com UE - Urban Estate Hope Shurigar 4030 Big Dipper Drive 303-437-4387 hopus30@msn.com See attached letter 8/21/2019 Tyler Shurigar 1. Hardship Additional Justification Additional Justification