The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/11/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 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 ZBA190018 Address: 1824 Lakeshore Circle Owner: Michael & Julie Estlick Petitioner: Rich & Cathy Ratschkowsky Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: The variance request is for a shed attached to the house to encroach 2.85 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. The house is setback 5.9 feet and the shed extends an additional 3.75 feet leaving a setback of 2.15 feet from the property line. 2. APPEAL ZBA190028 Address: 117 Pearl Street Owner/Petitioner: Chad & Kelly Mapp Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: The variance is to build an accessory building (tree-house) 5 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 July 11, 2019 3. APPEAL ZBA190029 Address: 617 W. Magnolia Street Owner/Petitioner: Tom & Lisa Trimmer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(2) Project Description: The variance is to build an addition which encroaches 7.5 feet into the required 15 foot front setback. The existing home also encroaches 7.5 feet into the same front setback. 4. APPEAL ZBA190030 Address: 432 Park Street Owner/Petitioner: Jim Swanson & Bonnie Brummer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(5) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a new vehicle parking area (garage) to have driveway access from the street, the required access is to be taken from the alley. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Vice Chair LaMastra called the meeting to order. Boardmembers Shields and McCoy were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the May 2019 meeting minutes. Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Long and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190009 - APPROVED Address: 525 Smith Street Owner: Daniel & Lisa Regan Petitioner: A. Wesley Gunter Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance request is to build an addition to the primary home. A portion encroaches approximately 2 feet in the required 5-foot side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He stated the proposed new rear addition would encroach into the side setback and noted the existing house already encroaches into that setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 13, 2019 Applicant Presentation: Adam Wesley Gunter stated the setbacks cannot be met due to the configuration of the house and 2002 addition. He also stated the original cobblestone foundation would be damaged with a complying plan and noted the Landmark Preservation Commission has approved his plan to this point. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover stated this seems straightforward and nominal and inconsequential. Chair LaMastra and Meyer agreed. Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190009 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the width of the encroachment is approximately 6 feet, the proposal encroachment is for the first story element with no windows and portions of the existing structure encroaches further into the same setback; 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. Vote: Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Long and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA190018 – POSTPONED TO JULY 3. APPEAL ZBA190019 - APPROVED Address: 2613 Cedarwood Drive Owner: Tom Davis Petitioner: Brad Martin Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: This is a variance request for a 240-square foot sunroom addition. The existing house has 1,803 square feet of floor area. The maximum floor area allowed is 1,764 square feet. With the addition, the total floor area is 2,043 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal noting this zone district has a requirement that the lot size be a minimum of 6,000 square feet and that the lot size be at least three times the floor area on the property. This lot is already smaller than the minimum 6,000 square feet at 5,292 square feet. Beals stated the proposed sunroom addition would be to the rear of the house and would encompass the existing patio. The sunroom would be mostly glass but would have some solid elements. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if this subdivision was built in the RL zone. Beals replied it was built in the predecessor zone which had a similar floor area to lot size requirement. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are other similar lots in the area. Beals replied he could not answer that definitively. Applicant Presentation: Brad Martin, Champion Windows, stated the proposed sunroom would add 240 square feet. He read a letter from Zoning staff indicating the home is now considered a legal, non-conforming structure as the zone district changed from when the property was built. He noted the sunroom will not be heated or air conditioned and stated the sunroom will sit on the existing patio pad. Tom Davis, owner, stated no adjacent homeowners are opposed to the project and it will allow him to use the space during the summer when the existing patio is too hot. Stockover asked if this structure will have a rooftop deck. Mr. Martin replied in the affirmative but noted only the first story will be enclosed. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 June 13, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked which variance justification the applicant is seeking. Mr. Davis replied his neighbors find the proposal to be nominal and inconsequential. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why Mr. Davis is installing a deck if the existing patio is too hot. Mr. Davis replied the plan is to install a sliding glass door from the adjacent bedroom to access the open patio. Long asked why the structure needs to be enclosed. Mr. Davis replied the heat is overwhelming. Meyer asked Mr. Davis if he was aware his house is already over the maximum allowable square footage. Mr. Davis replied in the negative. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover noted no complaints have been heard but expressed some concern about the deck and railing. He discussed the staff recommendation of denial but stated he would be in support of the request. Long expressed concern the request does not meet the criteria in terms of finding a valid hardship or being minimal and inconsequential. Stockover stated the proposal is nominal and inconsequential to the block. Vice Chair LaMastra noted not only is the home over the allowable floor area, but the lot is under the minimum lot size. Stockover asked Mr. Davis if he was the original owner. Mr. Davis replied in the affirmative and stated it was a spec home. He stated he was never made aware of the size issues. Vice Chair LaMastra stated case for both hardship and nominal and inconsequential could be made. Stockover made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve Appeal ZBA190019 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2, and with the findings that, if the lot were at the minimum size of 6,000 square feet required for this neighborhood that has been changed with updated Codes and replats, the floor area of the home with the addition would only be 43 square feet over the allowed square footage, which is nominal and inconsequential. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL ZBA190020 - APPROVED Address: 432 Park Street Petitioner/Owner: James Swanson & Bonnie Brummer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.19(A)(5); 4.8(E)(5) Project Description: This is a request for a stairwell to encroach 4'¾" into the required 15-foot street side setback and the building to extend 1'11" over the max building height of 25'4". Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He noted there is no public sidewalk, just a parkway from the property line to the curb. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the garage portion is already in the side yard setback. Beals replied he believes so and stated there is an additional variance application for this property on next month's agenda. Applicant Presentation: James Swanson replied the existing home was purchased prior to the Eastside Westside Neighborhood Guidelines being implemented and noted the lot size makes meeting setbacks difficult without building an entirely new structure. He stated the additional variance request mentioned is for a curb cut for the garage access which was approved by the Engineering Department. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 13, 2019 Audience Participation: Amy Martin stated she lives directly north of the subject property and expressed support for the project. James Martin stated this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Beals read two letters of support from Chad and Cindy Morris at 400 Park Street and Madeline Burke at 405 Park Street. Board Discussion: Long noted the setback is effectively 27 feet; therefore, this is inconsequential. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed and stated the building height is also nominal. Long made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair LaMastra, to approve Appeal ZBA190020 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment into the setback is less than existing encroachment, the encroachment is for a staircase that is below grade and semi-transparent handrail that is less than four feet above grade, the increased building height is for a pitched roof that is not the full length of the building and the visual appearance of the building is two stories; 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. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. APPEAL ZBA190021 - APPROVED Address: 313 Edwards Street Owner: Claire Pederson Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side-yard setback. Existing addition to home was built 2 feet into the setback; this request is rebuilding the roof with a steeper pitch and increasing the height of the existing wall by 8.5 inches. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal to place a new roof on the building increasing the building height and the wall height of an already encroaching wall. Applicant Presentation: Mark Villarreal stated the existing rafters are two by fours which will be replaced with two by tens, therefore increasing the height. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Long stated he would support the appeal as nominal and inconsequential. Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190021 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing wall already encroaches into the setback, the length of the wall does not increase, the eight inches of increase in wall height is a one-story element, and the proposal does not increase the floor area of the building; 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. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 13, 2019 6. APPEAL ZBA190018 - APPROVED Address: 1022 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner/Owner: Jeffrey S. Pace Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3); 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a variance request to allow a 60-foot section of fence at a side yard to be built 8 feet tall. The allowed maximum height of the fence is 6 feet. In July of 2018, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a similar request for this property. Staff Presentation: (**Secretary's Note: Meyer recused himself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He noted the previous approval was only for a 50-foot section and had the condition the fence does not increase above 8 feet from the existing grade if a retaining wall were required. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Pace stated the proposed fence would be made of the same materials as the existing fence but will be an open lattice. He noted his property was raised due to flood zone requirements resulting in the first floor being the almost the same height as the top of the 6-foot fence; therefore, the intended privacy is defeated. Mr. Pace stated the change is nominal and inconsequential. He discussed the legal issue relating to the retaining wall, which he does not want, and stated he would meet the condition of the fence being only 8 feet from the existing grade. Audience Participation: Darryl Austin, neighbor, stated he does not have an issue with the 60-foot aspect; however, he has recently received the drainage certificate for his property and has filed suit against Mr. Pace in small claims court to deal with the retention wall aspect. Jonathan Chenard, 1014 West Mountain, supported the variance request. Vice Chair LaMastra asked Mr. Austin to detail his concerns. Mr. Austin stated he has started having water issues on his property, which have recently resulted in damage, since the redevelopment of Mr. Pace's lot. He stated he is fine with the fence not being higher than 8 feet. Vice Chair LaMastra asked how this was approved as properties are not to shed water onto neighboring properties. Long replied not all design works. Mr. Pace stated the drainage does work, is carefully engineered, and certified by the City. He argued Mr. Austin's damage was due to his un-guttered roof and foundation surrounding below ground windows. Vice Chair LaMastra noted this is in the middle of the property and is not next to the street frontage. She stated it is nominal and inconsequential and there is a hardship with the grade being forced up. Stockover noted the drainage and legal issues have nothing to do with this hearing and decision. Board Discussion: Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal ZBA190022 for the following reasons: the request is not detrimental to the public good, the lattice is not opaque and still provides some transparency, the lattice is constructed of similar materials to the fence, the lattice is for 60 feet of the 445 foot length of the property line, and the view of the increased fence height from the public right-of-way is minimal; 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. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 June 13, 2019 • OTHER BUSINESS Beals noted there will be an additional meeting next week and in July as well. • ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Chair Shields called the meeting to order. Boardmember Long was absent. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190023 - APPROVED Address: 2620 S. Timberline Road Petitioner/Owner: Glenn Haas Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (B) Table (B) Project Description: Variance to install new INDL wall sign which is 60" tall, the max height of a wall sign is 30". This property is in the Residential Sign District and sub-district Neighborhood Service Center. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the request. He noted the proposed sign location is on the interior of the commercial development facing the parking lot and not the residential uses to the east. Stockover asked if the proposed sign is lighted. Beals replied in the affirmative. Meyer asked if the other buildings in the shopping center are also within the Residential Sign District therefore having the same sign height restrictions. Beals replied in the affirmative but noted the King Soopers sign received a variance. Applicant Presentation: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 20, 2019 Glenn Haas showed photos of the property and discussed the expansion of Krazy Karl's to provide a separate entrance for to-go order pick-up, the door for which will be below the proposed sign. He stated the proposed sign has 30" high lettering, but the logo makes the sign 60" high. The sign would be backlit by a 20-amp light from about 4 PM to 12 AM. Haas stated the sign is not detrimental to the public good and would not diverge from the standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. He showed slides of the immediate commercial area and associated signage. He also noted there will be no access to his business from the east side of the building. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra asked about an email sent to staff. Beals replied the email was received from an individual on the east side of the project which is the opposite side of the proposed sign. Stockover asked if there is a Code provision regulating the brightness of the sign. Beals replied in the affirmative. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she understands the issue of making the sign legible, and given the context of adjacent signs, there seems to be a precedent for approval of the sign. Chair Shields stated this variance would not affect any residential areas and he would therefore support the request. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the sign is a bit odd in that it appears to indicate a store named "Pick Up" as it is larger than the Krazy Karl's sign and is not cohesive with that sign. Stockover stated the sign fits the space and is in character with the area. Shields made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal ZBA190023 as the request will not be detrimental to the public good, the proposed sign is on the west side of the building facing the internal parking lot, the increase in height is not for the entire message of the sign, and the increase in height does not exceed the sign allowance for the property; 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 purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA190024 - APPROVED Address: 112 S. Grant Avenue Owner: Jo & Nick Clements Petitioner: Kate Penning Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)1; 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(E)(2); 4.7(E)(3) & (4) Project Description: This is a request for 4 variances: 1) Allow 113 square feet floor area over the allowed lot maximum of 1680 square feet; 2) Allow 496 square feet floor area over the allowed rear half lot maximum of 525 square feet; 3) Allow rebuilding of garage addition, using existing footprint, to encroach 7'4" into the required 15' rear setback; 4) Allow the front porch to encroach 4'3" into the required 15' front setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal. He noted the site is a subdivision of an original lot. He stated the proposal is to replace the existing garage with a new one in the same footprint and add a new porch on the front of the home. Chair Shields asked if the front porch is counted in the overall square footage calculations. Beals replied it is not included in the floor area calculations. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 June 20, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the size of the lot to the north. Beals replied he was unsure of the exact measurement. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the subject lot's rear yard setback is the side yard setback for the property to the north. Beals replied in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation: Kate Penning, Tomlinson Designs, discussed the request noting the lot size and shape create hardships for meeting square footage requirements. She also discussed the need for replacing the existing garage. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra stated her biggest concern was the rear yard setback encroachment; however, as it is not impacting the adjacent property to the east, it does not appear to be an issue. She acknowledged the hardship with the lot size and shape. Stockover agreed and stated the proposed scale is an appropriate fit. Chair Shields noted there is also a significant amount of neighborhood support. Shields made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve Appeal ZBA190024 as the request will not be detrimental to the public good, the lot is unique in size and shape for the NCL zone district, other structures along the block face encroach into the front setback, the front setback encroachment is for a porch covering that is open on three sides, the abutting neighbor to the east has a required side setback of five feet; 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. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA190025 - APPROVED Address: 317 Smith Street Petitioner/Owner: Bruce Neuroth Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: The variance request is to build a 340 square foot addition to the back of the existing home. The existing home and accessory buildings currently total 3746 square feet. The overall allowable floor area for this 9500 square foot lot in NCM district is 3625 square feet. The addition will put the overall floor area total at 4086 square feet, 461 square feet over the maximum allowed. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the proposal noting the existing home and accessory buildings are already over the allowable floor area and the proposal would include an additional 340 square feet at the rear of the house. The proposed one-story addition does meet all required setbacks. Applicant Presentation: Bruce Neuroth stated he has lived in the neighborhood since 1979 and this addition will allow him and his family to continue to live in the property. He stated the addition will not be visible from the street. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the rear structure is a carport or garage. Mr. Neuroth stated it is a garage with an attached carport on the east. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover noted the addition is internal to the lot and not visible from the street. He stated it seems to fit well and was not opposed by neighbors. Vice Chair LaMastra stated the rear yard remains quite large and she will support the request. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 20, 2019 Shields made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair LaMastra, to approve Appeal ZBA190025 as the request will not be detrimental to the public good, the proposed addition is for a single story structure at the rear of the existing building, the proposed addition meets the setbacks and is entirely within the front half of the lot, 340 square feet is a 9.3% increase of the allowable floor area and a 9% increase of the existing floor area; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL ZBA190026 – OVERTURNED Appellant: Jeff Gaines and Bryan Soth Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 2.11.1; 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.7(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is an appeal of the Administrative Interpretation of sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and 4.7(d)(2)(d). Staff Presentation: Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the hearing procedure for this item will remain the same as other items and stated the decision will be to either uphold, overturn, or modify the administrative interpretation. He stated this request for interpretation was in regard to a property located at 226 North McKinley Avenue referring to Land Use Code Section 1.4.3. He stated the decisions made by the Board in all cases have persuasive value, though not necessarily precedential value. Vice Chair LaMastra asked whether other City-prepared documents interpreting the Land Use Code should be referenced, or if only the Code should be referenced. Yatabe replied legislative history regarding intent can be considered and argued. Beals stated the Code sections considered as part of this appeal deal with how floor area is granted and calculated related to detached accessory buildings. He described the interpretation of the Code sections. McCoy questioned why a variance board would try to set an interpretation for a standing issue. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the Board wouldn't just look at a variance for this specific issue. Beals replied there are three criteria under which a variance can be approved by the Board, and the Code makes clear an appeal of an administrative interpretation comes before this Board. Yatabe stated the grounds for this appeal is that the Code should be read differently. He stated the Board could arrive at the same conclusion through a variance; however, this is another avenue to pursue a variance and it is specific to this property. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there is anything else in the Code Section 4.7 that specifically calls out the maximum floor area of an accessory building. Beals replied the NCL zone district has some limitations on the maximum size of an accessory building, but there are no other standards in the section that call out how much floor area is allowed on the lot and how floor area is calculated. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Gaines, project architect Highcraft Builders, stated the administrative interpretation that was given did not look at what the Land Use Code has stated; therefore, an applicant has the recourse to come before the Board. He stated asking for a conventional variance on this project does not make sense to the question at hand. He noted this is a new house with a new detached garage and discussed his application of the Code to the project. He stated the Land Use Code needs to be changed to expressly define the 250 square foot limit and noted that is currently being contemplated. Mr. Gaines stated he confirmed his interpretation of the Code in 2013 with zoning staff and asked the Board whether zoning staff can deviate from a standard outlined in the Land Use Code. He also asked if there is any other method of applying the standards as written that would result in a 250 square foot limit on lots over 6,000 square feet without altering, omitting, or otherwise creating a paradox out of one of the standards. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 20, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra asked if Mr. Gaines was able to find other projects calculated in the same way. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative. Stockover asked Mr. Gaines if he was given the option of applying for a regular variance. Mr. Gaines replied in the affirmative but stated variances exist to deal with unusual physical conditions on lots or hardships, and in this case, this is a new house and a new garage and that route did not seem germane to the question as the actual interpretation of the Code was the question. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she believes Mr. Gaines did the right thing in approaching the issue in this manner. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra discussed the Code and stated it is clear in the way it is written regardless of its intent. She questioned whether an applicant is liable for understanding the intent behind Code language and discussed her thoughts about the wording. Chair Shields stated he has always read the Code section to state accessory structures may be 250 square feet, though he has never addressed it in such depth. He agreed with Vice Chair LaMastra that applicants should not be expected to research the interpretation of the Code and stated he would support the applicant on this issue. McCoy stated he did not disagree with Vice Chair LaMastra; however, a better context for the argument would have been present if the Board would have seen the variance. Vice Chair LaMastra stated Mr. Gaines did not submit for a variance because he did not believe he needed one given his interpretation of the Code. Stockover stated he would have likely approved this if it had come as an appeal; however, he stated he understood staff's interpretation while also understanding Vice Chair LaMastra's comments. (**Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Gaines presented the Board with information related to his discussion with zoning staff in 2013 noting staff never clarified there was a mistake in the Code at that time and he had no reason to assume anything had changed since that time. Stockover stated Vice Chair LaMastra and Chair Shields had made excellent arguments in support of the appellant; therefore, he too would offer that support, particularly given the information related to the applicant's discussion with zoning staff in 2013. Chair Shields stated he did agree with McCoy that a regular variance request would have accomplished the same result and noted there are multiple interpretations of the section. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she does not take overturning staff's interpretation lightly; however, she cannot agree with that interpretation given the existing Code language. Vice Chair LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to overturn the administrative interpretation of Sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) and 4.7(D)(2)(d) for Appeal ZBA 190026, at 226 North McKinley Avenue, finding that under Section 4.7(D)(2), the Land Use Code specifically defines different size lots, their allowable floor areas, for lots less than 5,000 square feet that do not mention an additional 250 feet, for lots between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet that do not mention an additional 250 feet. The Code then goes on to add, for lots over 6,000 square feet, that an additional 250 square feet will be permitted as well as in subsection 3 for lots over 10,000, that says it is 30% plus 250 square feet. Furthermore, in Section 4.7(D)(2)(b), (c), and (d), read for being applicable to all lots regardless of their size whether they are under 5,000 square feet or over 10,000 square feet, and how to calculate allowable floor area. At this point, in subsection d, it mentions that the first 250 square feet of a detached accessory building shall not be included. This subsection does not specifically define, as in subsection a, any differentiation in lot size; therefore, it is the assumption that it applies to all lots regardless of their size. Given that information, the motion is to overturn the administrative interpretation and allow the proposed site plan to move forward. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: McCoy. THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 June 20, 2019 5. APPEAL ZBA190027 – TABLED Address: 2720 Council Tree Avenue Owner: Studio Be Salon Petitioner: Randy Lerich Zoning District: H-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(A)(3)(a) Project Description: This is a request to allow signage on the west side of the building. An increase in sign allowance is permitted for the building with the condition that no signs be allowed on the west side. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the request for the ability to display signs on the west side of the building. Stockover asked if there is a corner lot provision in the Sign Code. Beals replied Council Tree Avenue is not a public right-of-way; therefore, the business is not given the sign allowance that would normally apply to a corner lot on two public rights-of-way. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the business currently exists in the location with signage. Beals replied the business is fairly new at this location and signage is currently on the south side of the building. Stockover asked if the request is to exceed the maximum sign allowance. Beals replied basing the calculation on the long side of the building would still allow this extra signage within the allowance; however, that calculation is based on the prohibition of signs based on the west side. Stockover noted the additional signage would be allowed on the west side if Council Tree were a public right-of-way. Applicant Presentation: Randy Lerich, Action Signs, stated the west side signage is being requested so traffic can see the location. He noted Front Range Village carefully regulates signage for its stores. Vice Chair LaMastra asked what is advantageous about moving the sign to the column versus putting it on the corner. Mr. Lerich replied the column placement allows the entrance of the salon to be visible. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if the door below the awning is usable. Mike Ogden, Studio Be owner, replied that door is not usable by clients and often stays locked. He stated the proposed pillar sign is there so pedestrians walking east can see the sign. Chair Shields asked about the purpose of the awning sign on the west side. Mr. Ogden replied it is added branding and as an identifier for people coming that direction. Patrick Bunyard, Front Range Village General Manager, stated this space has been vacant for three years and storefront visibility has been a struggle. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there is a business entrance on the north side of the building. Mr. Bunyard replied there is a back door, but people park and walk around to the front entrance. Chair Shields asked if the allowable area for the logo was maximized on the projecting wall sign. Mr. Lerich replied the Sign Code allows 15 square feet per side, and this sign is right at that limit. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are signs on three sides of the column. Mr. Bunyard replied in the affirmative. Beals noted vertically-oriented signs are a new sign type in the recent Sign Code update and only one is allowed per building. Mr. Lerich stated he will likely be back before the Board for an additional variance related to a second vertical sign depending on the outcome of this appeal. Stockover asked if the Artery sign in Old Town is considered a vertical sign under the new Code. Beals replied that sign needed a variance for its overall height and projection, but not for being vertical. The new vertical sign types are flush to building walls. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Stockover suggested asking the applicant if they would like to table the item and return with an alternate proposal. McCoy stated he would not favor a variance for this situation given the sign square footage is based on the street chosen. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 June 20, 2019 Vice Chair LaMastra stated she understands the concerns of the applicant; however, four signs seems excessive. She also noted this approval would put an existing sign out of compliance. Chair Shields agreed the proposal seems a bit excessive and stated some minor tweaks could have put the proposal into compliance. Meyer asked whether the signage is based on the direction it is facing or the facing direction of the wall on which it is mounted. Beals replied it is based on the side of the building on which the sign is mounted, and blade signs are, by definition, perpendicular to the wall face on which they are mounted. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she would not support the request as the existing signage has not all been shown as part of the application. Stockover stated regulations on awning signs are lacking and noted there are many buildings with labeled awnings that are not placed over doors. He also noted signage for this type of use is advertising related rather than directional. Chair Shields asked the applicants if they would agree to table the item and return with a new proposal. The applicants replied in the affirmative. Chair Shields made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to table Appeal ZBA 190027. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, McCoy, Shields, Meyer and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals mentioned a recent ordinance change dealing with how Boards and Commissions members vote. The ordinance states that any abstention vote automatically counts as a 'yes.' Yatabe noted this same regulation already applies to Council. He also noted minutes can be voted upon by members not present at the meeting for which the minutes apply. • ADJOURNMENT: 11:35 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1824 Lakeshore Circle Owner: Michael & Julie Estlick Petitioner: Rich & Cathy Ratschkowsky Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Variance Request: The variance request is for a shed attached to the house to encroach 2.85 feet into the required 5 foot side- yard setback. The house is setback 5.9 feet and the shed extends an additional 3.75 feet leaving a setback of 2.15 feet from the property line. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a part of the Cobblestone Shores subdivision that was approved in 1978. The primary building was built approximately in 1980. The side setback has not changed since the building was ordinally built. The encroaching shed was constructed without a building permit. Because the structure is attached to the house, it does require a building permit and therefore needs to comply with setback standards. The previous owner started the application for the variance and the new owner is pursing the request. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends Uapproval with the condition that if a fence is placed within three feet of either side of the west property line then the shed is to be removedU and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The encroachment is less than 8ft in height • The encroachment is for 16 feet of the 182 feet length of the property line • The visual appearance of the attached shed is minimal from the public right of way. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA190018 Dear Mr. Beals, We live at 1818 Lakeshore Circle, and are the neighbors immediately adjacent to the attached shed that encroaches on the required setback at 1824 Lakeshore Circle for which APPEAL ZBA190018 has been filed. We will be out of town on a previously scheduled overseas trip on June 13P th P and unable to attend the hearing. We believe that for reasons of safety, aesthetics and property values the illegal shed should be removed to comply with City of Fort Collins code 4.4(D)(2)(d). If the Zoning Board does not agree to dismiss the appeal, then we request a postponement of this matter until after our return on June 23P rd P so that we may have the opportunity to respond to any claims made during the hearing. Our position is as follows: 1) The 2-foot, 6-inch walkway written on the appellant’s photo is not factual. As documented in her attached plot plan from Edmonds Land Survey, the 1824 Lakeshore property line is +/- 5 feet, 9 inches, (69 inches) from the northwest corner of her house at the site where the north end of the illegal attached shed is situated. The structure projects out from the garage to a depth of 47 inches, as documented in the attached photos. In other words, it extends 38 inches into the required 60-inch setback, leaving only 22 inches between the illegal structure and the property line. I do not know what the appellant means when she writes, “The shed is 2.5 feet from the natural division between the properties.” There is no “natural division,” rather there is a legal property line, from which the setback is measured. We, or future owners of 1818 Lakeshore Circle, may one day put up a fence along that property line, or opt to do other forms of landscaping. Losing our right to do so in order to maintain a so-called ‘natural division’ would devalue our property. 2) The city of Fort Collins Low Density Residential District (R-L) rules, 4.4 (D)( 2)(d) require a setback of five (5) feet for all interior side yards.” This city code is in agreement with the covenants of the Cobblestone Shore Homeowners Association, which states: “No building shall be located on any lot unless such location complies with the set-back regulations of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and such set-backs have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee for Cobblestone Shores.” 1824 Lakeshore Circle is a member of the HOA and bound by its rules. 3) In trying to determine whether the setback standards are merely arbitrary, I did some research and looked to find an explanation of the purpose for a “setback.” I could not find one on the City of Fort Collins website, but I did find one on the Larimer County website. It states: “Setbacks improve safety, allow space for drainage and utilities, reduce impacts from noise, preserve/improve aesthetics, and provide space for screening and landscaping from adjacent lots.” Safety The illegal shed allows only 22 inches for passage for fire or safety officials to get through to the back yard or lake at 1824. For reference, International Building Code requires elevators to be sized to “accommodate an ambulance stretcher that measures 24 by 84-inches, as required by Section 3002.4.” This suggests that a 22-inch easement on the west side of 1824 Lakeshore Circle would be insufficient to allow passage of a stretcher if paramedics were called to an emergency in the back yard or a drowning on the lake. Similarly, the 2018 International Fire Code states that detached one-family dwellings … shall comply with the International Residential Code. This suggests that firefighters feel that a 5-foot side yard is the appropriate space for them to be able to effectively fight a fire at the back or side of a residential dwelling. Complying with International Fire Code guidelines not only protects the structure and its contents, but also helps ensure the safety of the occupants of 1824 Lakeshore and of the firefighters themselves. The appellant writes that the shed is used to store “fishing gear and water toys.” However, it is just as likely that the shed could be used to store charcoal briquettes, propane tanks, fire wood, gas tanks, camping fuel or any other assortment of combustible or flammables material. The appellant notes that “the neighbors to the west have 10 cedars planted closely. They are right on their east property line.” The trunks of these are in fact approximately two feet from the property line. But, they are certainly close enough to the illegal shed that there would be an enhanced danger of a fire spreading from the garage or shed of 1824 Lakeshore Circle to the adjacent property at 1818 Lakeshore Circle. The illegal shed is made of wood, meaning it would burn and be a source of fuel should it or the 1824 garage ignite. Drainage If setbacks are intended to allow for drainage, it should be noted that as documented in the plot map provided by the appellant, the majority of the backyard of 1824 is designated as a spillway easement for Lake Sherwood. Aesthetics The appellant writes that the shed “cannot be readily seen from the … neighboring properties” and provides a photo titled, “Neighbors to the west looking east to the shed,” which claims “View blocked by their trees.” However, that photo is taken looking towards the northeast, not towards the east. That can be confirmed based upon the position of the large cottonwood tree in the backyard of 1824 Lakeshore in the appellant’s photo labeled, “Back view taken from lake bed,” as well as in the attached aerial view from the recent property listing. It demonstrates that the cottonwood cannot be seen when looking east from 1818 Lakeshore. You’ll note that the shed, but not the cottonwood, is clearly visible in this photo, taken to the east from the bottom front step of 1818 Lakeshore on June 4, 2019. Similarly, the next photo, taken from the driveway/sidewalk of 1818 Lakeshore Circle, (at a different time of day under different light conditions) again clearly shows the shed. Should the trees lose needles or branches, or should we decide to replace the trees with a fence, the illegal shed will be even more visible from the adjacent property, given that it is only 22 inches from the property line. Because of the increased fire and safety hazards posed by the illegal shed, and because of aesthetic concerns, the structure adversely affects the property values of 1818 Lakeshore Circle. For that and the safety reasons outlined above, the appeal should be denied. Thank you Karen Schwartz & Sam Shelanski (970) 225-1036 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Date: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:19:51 PM Attachments: image001.png From: Mike Estlick <mestlick@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 6:06 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Hi, I measure the shed at 3.75', matching the diagram. Looking at the diagram, that implies a setback of 2.15' We bought this house from the people that originally submitted the application, so I'm not sure what they were referring to in the written part of the application. The written application mentions a 2.5' walkway from the shed to the "natural division between the properties". Are you referring to that 2.5' when you wrote 1.5'? I don't see any measurement of 1.5' in the application. I measure 2.75' from the shed to the edging. The edging is what separates the walkway from the area with the trees, and is shown as the far edge of the "walkway" in the picture of the shed in the application. I measure slightly over 4' from the shed to each of the trees at my waist level. Thanks, Mike On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Mike and Julie, We wanted to confirm the setback of the shed you are seeking a variance for. The written application suggest the shed is 3.5’ leaving 1.5’ setback. The diagram suggest the shed is 3.75’ and the existing structure is +or -5.9’ leaving a 2.15’ setback. Please verify which is correct. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 10:32:07 AM Attachments: image001.png From: Noah Beals Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 10:31 AM To: Mike Estlick <mestlick@gmail.com> Subject: RE: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Mike, Thanks, see you at the meeting. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Mike Estlick <mestlick@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 10:29 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Hi, You have my permission to use the picture and measurement. Thanks, Mike On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:35 AM Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Mike, The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is this week. We typically have an inspector go out prior to the meeting and take pictures. A Zoning inspector went out on Friday of last week, however no one was home at that time. The neighbor was home and let us take some pictures from their property. The inspector did take a tape measure to the shed (see attached picture) and found the shed measured about 47” (3.9’) from the house. This puts the setback at 2ft from the property not 2.15’. This variance process does require staff to provide a report and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. At this time based on the 2.15’ setback we have recommended approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the condition that if a fence were to be erected along that property line that the shed is to be removed. With the new information of the setback only being 2’, our recommendation has not changed. We did not receive your permission to be on the property when the picture was taken. We did have permission to be on the neighbor’s property. We are seeking your permission now to use the picture and measurement we obtained. Please respond back to this email if that is OK or not. Or if you would rather, we can meet you on the property again and take another measurement and picture with you there. Please let me know if you have any questions as well. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Noah Beals Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:22 PM To: Mike Estlick <mestlick@gmail.com> Subject: RE: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Hello Mike, Thanks for the email. We will adjust the variance request to encroach 2.85 feet in the required 5ft side-yard setback. Mailing notifications will go out this week and the this will be heard on the July 11th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Mike Estlick <mestlick@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 6:06 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: ZBA190018 (1824 Lakeshore Circle) Hi, I measure the shed at 3.75', matching the diagram. Looking at the diagram, that implies a setback of 2.15' We bought this house from the people that originally submitted the application, so I'm not sure what they were referring to in the written part of the application. The written application mentions a 2.5' walkway from the shed to the "natural division between the properties". Are you referring to that 2.5' when you wrote 1.5'? I don't see any measurement of 1.5' in the application. I measure 2.75' from the shed to the edging. The edging is what separates the walkway from the area with the trees, and is shown as the far edge of the "walkway" in the picture of the shed in the application. I measure slightly over 4' from the shed to each of the trees at my waist level. Thanks, Mike On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Mike and Julie, We wanted to confirm the setback of the shed you are seeking a variance for. The written application suggest the shed is 3.5’ leaving 1.5’ setback. The diagram suggest the shed is 3.75’ and the existing structure is +or -5.9’ leaving a 2.15’ setback. Please verify which is correct. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: UPDATE - July 11th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 12:22:22 PM Attachments: 20190705_214802067_iOS.jpg -----Original Message----- From: Noah Beals Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 12:22 PM To: 'Karen Schwartz' <karenschwartz@comcast.net> Subject: RE: UPDATE - July 11th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Karen, Thanks for the emails. We will provide the possible variance in measurement information with picture to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I have attached the picture to this email per your request as well. Regards, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning 970 416-2313 -----Original Message----- From: Karen Schwartz <karenschwartz@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:36 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: UPDATE - July 11th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Hi Noah, Sorry. I just realized that the measurement was 5.9 feet, not 5 feet 9 inches. Your math is correct and I apologize. I’m very embarrassed. I would still appreciate seeing a copy of the photo that the zoning inspector took on Friday, since as I mentioned, I believe it supported my measurement that the shed extends 47 inches from the house. (My assumption is that all the various measurements may in fact be accurate as the shed likely isn’t square. It was built by the former homeowner’s son and not by a licensed contractor.) The year the shed was built was 2012. thank you Karen From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: Correction needed for July 11th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 12:56:35 PM From: Karen Schwartz <karenschwartz@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 5:46 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Correction needed for July 11th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Sorry, I forgot to mention: Given the corrected math that demonstrates that the shed extends (at least) 3 feet into the 5 foot easement, as well as the inspector’s measurements which I believe will show that the shed extends 3.17 feet into the 5 foot easement, it is my hope that the City Staff will reconsider the recommendation currently attached to the Agenda and instead recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for the variance be denied. Sincerely, Karen Schwartz On Jul 7, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Karen Schwartz <karenschwartz@comcast.net> wrote: Hi Noah, I believe there needs to be corrections to the Agenda and the Staff Report for the July 11th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, as there are errors in the published math regarding Appeal ZBA190018, for 1824 Lakeshore Circle. The project description in the Agenda and the Variance Request in the Staff Report both state: “The variance request is for a shed attached to the house to encroach 2.85 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. The house is setback 5.9 feet and the shed extends an additional 3.75 feet leaving a setback of 2.15 feet from the property line.” Using these figures: The house is set back 5.9 feet, or 69 inches. If the shed extends 3.75 feet from the house, that equals 45 inches. This states that it leaves a setback of 2.15 feet, or 25.8 inches. However, 69-45=24, not 25.8, so by these measurement it would leave only 2 feet from the property line, not 2.15 feet as currently. Also, I was outside on Friday when the zoning inspector came by and I believe that her photo will show that her measurement at ground level on the north end of the shed was that it extends 47 inches from the house. As a result, that leaves a setback 1.83 feet (69-47=22 inches), not 2.15 feet. Could I please obtain a copy of that photo in advance of the meeting, and additionally, I ask that her photo be attached to the Staff Report and distributed at the hearing so that the measurement made by the only objective party is available to all. Finally, to be accurate, while the primary house at 1824 Lakeshore was built around 1980, the shed was only built in 2012. Thank you in advance for correcting the record ahead of the hearing, Sincerely, Karen Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190028 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 117 Pearl Street Petitioner/Owner: Chad & Kelly Mapp Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Variance Request: The variance is to build an accessory building (treehouse) 5 feet into the required 5 foot side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property contains is a single-family home with a detached accessory building (garage). On both the south and east sides of the property exist an alley. Accessory buildings have a required 5 foot setback from an alley. A building permit is required for structures that are over 120 square feet and/or 8 feet in height. Additionally, if a play structure is built in a tree it requires a permit if extra supports to the ground below are required. This treehouse is 110 square feet and less than 8 feet in height from floor to ceiling. It is designed to have supports and a staircase that extend to the ground. Therefore, it requires a building permit and to meet the setbacks of the zone district. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • A treehouse is not habitable space. • The encroachment is along a property line that is shared with a public 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. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190028. Chad and Kelly Mapp 117 Pearl Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 June 11, 2019 Zoning Board Member Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Zoning Board Member: Thank you for the opportunity to consider our variance request. We would like to build our daughter a tree house in the backyard, close to the alley property line. The desired tree is about 3 feet from the property line adjacent to an essentially vacated alley and we want the tree house to surround the tree. Our understanding is that there is a 5 feet setback requirement from the property line. Therefore, we are requesting a variance to build the tree house up to the property line adjacent to the alley. We feel that the tree house will not be detrimental to the public good and will actually enhance the family friendly neighborhood. In addition, we feel the variance request meets two of the three justification reasons. First, 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. The property is in Old Town and the setback area is adjacent to an essentially vacated alley. The alley has not been formerly vacated like the one across the street, but the area is not used by the public as an alley and has not been for decades. The separated garages are built up to the property line with 12” eave overhangs into the alley. The alley is grown over with grass and it is common to see horseshoe pits and lawn furniture in the neighboring alley areas. The property on the other side of the alley is a large open space owned by our neighbor and used as an orchard. Second, by reason of extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property given that the existing tree is about 3 feet from the property line. Please see the included plans and drawings and thanks you for considering our requested variance. Sincerely, Chad Mapp 10' 2"x8" Floor Joists (2) 2"x10" Beams EAST ELEVATION N TREE FLAGSTONE WALKWAY GARAGE HEDGES GRASS ALLEY CONCRETE WALKWAY 10' 11' 3' 8' 5' FROM PROPERTY LINE ALLEY NORTH ELEVATION ALLEY SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: Fwd: Comment on Variance Request Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 9:05:14 PM Begin forwarded message: From: "Binkley,Daniel" <Dan.Binkley@colostate.edu> Date: July 1, 2019 at 7:40:06 PM MDT To: "nbeals@fcgov.com" <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: "Higgins,Jane" <Jane.Higgins@ColoState.EDU> Subject: Comment on Variance Request We received the notice about building a tree house at 117 Pearl St. (Appeal ZBA190028). We think this would be dandy, and support the variance. Cheers, Dan Binkley 1218 W Mountain Ave Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190029 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 617 W. Magnolia Street Petitioner/Owner: Tom & Lisa Trimmer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(2) Variance Request: The variance is to build an addition which encroaches 7.5 feet into the required 15 foot front-yard setback. The existing home also encroaches 7.5 feet into the same front setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a part of the Loomis subdivision that was annexed into the City in approximately 1887. The original lot was a rectangle in shape and fronted on to Whitcomb Street. Later a portion of two lots were divided to create a more square shape parcel that fronts on to Magnolia. A primary building was constructed on this square shape parcel in 1951. The existing primary encroaches into the required 15 foot front-yard setback by 4.5 feet, and the porch extends further encroaching 7.5 feet. The proposed addition is designed to meet the same encroachment of the existing house and porch. As pointed out in the portioner’s application, other homes that face magnolia also encroach into the front- yard setback in similar form. 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 lot’s unique square shape makes it difficult to place an addition in the rear of the building that complies with allowable floor area in the rear half. • The existing structure encroaches the same distance for both habitable space and the porch. • The front-yard encroachment is within context of the other primary buildings that front on to Magnolia Street. 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 ZBA190029. June 6, 2019 To the Members of the Zoning Board, Thank you for your consideration of our application. My name is Lisa Trimmer and my family and I reside at 617 W Magnolia St, Fort Collins, CO. We are requesting a zoning code variance regarding a planned addition to our home. The foundation of the existing house is currently 11.5 feet from our front lot line (determined by an ILC in 2017 when we purchased the home). We are proposing to build a modest addition to the east of the existing house, flush with the existing frontage. We would also like to add a small, covered front porch to the addition which would extend to the distance of the existing covered front steps. Please see the attached documentation for exact distances and orientation. No part of the addition or porch would bring the completed building closer to the sidewalk and road than the existing house currently sits. Our request fulfills justification (2) from the application: “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 complied with the standard for which the variance is requested” The standard setback is 15 feet, which was set to prevent new buildings and additions from encroaching on walkways and so as not to interfere with the eye-line from adjacent properties or the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood. Our addition would not violate this purpose because it does not reach farther than the existing structure. Additionally, measurements were taken of the neighboring homes and porches, and our proposal was found to be either similar or setback farther from walkways and streets than those of the surrounding homes. Please see additional documentation for exact measurements of neighboring setbacks. Thank you again for your consideration. Our goal is to expand our home with an appreciation for the surrounding neighborhood. We appreciate your assistance in reaching this goal. Regards, Tom and Lisa Trimmer 617 W Magnolia St Fort Collins, CO 80521 7.5' 7.5' 15.0' 5.0' 24.0' 20.0' 11.5' 16.5' WEST 90' EAST 90' NORTH 140' SOUTH 140' WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The West 90 feet of 1 and the West 90' of the North 1/2 of Lot 4, Block 287, LOOMIS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, County of Larimer, State of Colorado a.k.a. 617 W. MAGNOLIA STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PLOT PLAN Scale: 1" to 20' EXISTING PORCH 19.5 PROPOSED PORCH EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED 2 STORY ADDITION 4 11 11 4.5 4.5 29.5 29.5 3.5 4.5 12 2'-7" 16'-4" ADDITION for TOM & LISA TRIMMER 617 MAGNOLIA STREET UP 18'-4" x 4'-2" 1335 sq ft 30'-0" 3'-6" 8'-10" 9'-6 1/2" 10'-1" 4'-4" 34'-6" 44'-1 3/8" 32'-11 7/8" 11'-1 1/2" 4'-6" 30'-0" 11'-9" 5'-6 1/2" 1'-11" 10'-9 1/2" 44'-1 3/8" 8'-1" 13'-2" 11'-3" 4'-4" 10'-3" 18'-7" 10'-4" 15'-6 5/8" 5" 11'-3" 6'-10 5/8" 5" 8'-11" 10'-7" DECK LIVING AREA Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JULY 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190030 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 432 Park Street Petitioner/Owner: Jim Swanson & Bonnie Brummer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(5) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a new vehicle parking area (garage) to have driveway access from the street, the required access is to be taken from the alley. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annexed into the City as part of the Capital Hill Addition. The house was built in 1947. It is unclear the number of alterations there have been. The parcel is the original platted lot and has not changed. An alley has always existed since it was platted. The existing garage on site does take access from the alley. In June of this year the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance for the property for a stairwell to encroach 4'-0 3/4" into the required 15' street side setback and the building to extend 1'-11" over the max building height of 25'4”. 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: • The existing off-street parking area takes access from the alley and is to remain. • The code section is to reduce excessive driveway connections to streets and to reduce vehicle crossing with pedestrian and bike paths. • Insufficient evidence has been provided to determine if the proposal is not detrimental to the public good. • 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 UdenialU of APPEAL ZBA190030 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: Appeal ZBA190030 Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 10:05:37 AM From: Morris, Chad <Chad.Morris@ucdenver.edu> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:12 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Appeal ZBA190030 To Whom It May Concern: As a neighbor of James Swanson and Bonnie Brummer who live at 432 Park Street, we are writing to support their variance request for a new vehicle parking area (garage) to have driveway access from the street. Regards, Chad and Cindy Morris 400 Park Street, 80521 303.941.6259 __________________________________ Chad D. Morris, Ph.D. Professor of Psychiatry Director, Behavioral Health & Wellness Program University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus Department of Psychiatry Campus Box F478 1784 Racine Street, Building 401 Aurora, Colorado 80045 (p) 303.724.3709 (f) 303.724.3717 chad.morris@ucdenver.edu www.bhwellness.org !"#$%&!% '()&# * ++ ,+-+ .+*+/*,*/ 01234#/5 66#0 247!5 $%&!% '242'# **. ,+-+ /8 ,+-+ /8 9/5 6!62 ,*///: ;*+. ,*/+; 5 55*/+,*/< =*,*/+;> *> ? **55 555*9 =*,*/<=* ? 5 **55*9*,*/ 5 9/5 /5*,,+@*5 ,,+/+*: ,*/ @,*9 @+/,+,,+/+*@/ **+-8 / 9*+/+*