HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair
Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair
Bob Long
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Butch Stockover
Karen Szelei-Jackson
Council Liaison: Ken Summers
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 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 ZBA190004
Address: 204 2nd Street
Owner/Petitioner: Jacob & Katherine Castillo
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b), 4.4(D)(2)(d)
Project Description:
The variance request is to allow a new covered front porch to encroach half of a foot into the require 5-
foot side-yard setback. The existing house currently encroaches into the side yard setback approx. .33
of a foot.
2. APPEAL ZBA190005
Address: 3405 S. Timberline Rd.
Owner: 2001 Danfield LLC
Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano
Zoning District: E
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B)Table B
Project Description:
This is a request to exceed the maximum 2-foot width of a vertically oriented wall sign by 9 inches as
well as allowing internal illumination where only indirect is permitted.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AGENDA
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 14, 2019
3. APPEAL ZBA190006
Address: 717 Eastdale Dr.
Owner: Gerda Wilcox
Petitioner: Jeff Gaines
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7.E.3, 4.7.E.4, 3.8.19(A)(6)
Project Description:
The variance request is to encroach 3.5 feet into the required 5-foot side-yard setback and 3.5 feet into
the required 5-foot rear-yard setback. Additionally, the eaves on the side and rear to be a 0-foot
setback when a 2.5-foot setback is required.
4. APPEAL ZBA190007
Address: 131 S. Sherwood St.
Owner: Sharon Getz
Petitioner: Jeff Gaines
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8 (D) 3, 4.8 (E) 3
Project Description:
The variance request is to increase the allowed floor area in the rear-half of the lot. The maximum
allowed floor area in the rear-half is 701 square feet. The proposal brings the total to 1283.5 square
feet in the rear-half. The existing structure already exceeds the maximum floor area in the rear-half.
An additional variance request is to allow an attached garage addition to encroach 10 feet into the
required 15-foot rear-yard setback.
5. APPEAL ZBA190008
Address: 140 N. Bryan Ave.
Owner: James & Meaghan Nally
Petitioner: Heidi Shuff
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(D)(3)
Project Description:
The variance request is to construct a rear 586 square foot addition to the existing 768 square foot
home at 140 N Bryan St. The addition is within the overall allowable square footage for this 5207
square foot lot, but is 142 square feet over the 650 square feet allowed in the rear half of the lot.
6. APPEAL ZBA190009 – WITHDRAWN
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Ralph Shields, Vice Chair
Shelley La Mastra
Bob Long
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Butch Stockover
Karen Szelei-Jackson
Council Liaison: Ken Summers
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
8:34 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the December 13, 2018 Minutes.
Vote
Yeas: Jackson, Meyer, Shields, Long
Abstain: McCoy, LaMastra
Nays: None
The Motion was carried.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA180046 - APPROVED
Address: 2405 Purdue Circle
Owner/Petitioner: Lyra McMillian
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c)
Project Description:
This is a request for an accessory building to be located 6 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard
setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The request is to
continue building a shed in the backyard, located 9 feet away from the rear property line. There is a
required 15-foot setback. The shed encroaches 6 feet into the setback, but the encroachment varies
along the length of the building. The applicant acknowledged in her letter to the board that she was
unaware of the requirements regarding a permit or setback. Construction was put on hold to follow
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 February 14, 2019
proper procedure. There is a large tree in the backyard that prevents her from moving the shed to
accommodate the setback. The shed is sized properly in both square footage and height.
Boardmember LaMastra inquired as to the health of the tree. Beals was not aware if the health of the
tree has been assessed but did confirm it is a green ash tree.
Applicant Presentation:
Lyra McMillian, 2405 Purdue Circle, addressed the board. Ms. McMillian has the green ash tree
pruned regularly and the arborist has advised the tree is healthy.
Boardmember LaMastra brought up the emerald ash tree borers in the area and asked if the
applicant is planning on treating this tree. Ms. McMillian’s arborist suggested it is not effective to
pretreat trees, typically by the time the borer gets in the tree, it’s hard to recognize there is a problem
until it’s too late. Her grandfather planted the tree, so she does have significant interest in keeping it
healthy. Boardmember LaMastra stated the city has a prevention process in place and is planning on
protecting some of their more significant trees.
Boardmember Jackson asked about the roof height. Beals confirmed that the shed’s roof height is
within requirements.
Boardmember LaMastra reviewed the drawings of the porch and wanted to know if that area is
reflected on the plans. Beals confirmed the porch is not shown on the plans. In this zone district, that
porch area does not count toward floor area, but does prevent the shed from being moved closer to
the tree.
Ms. McMillian stated when she poured the footings, she did not want to encroach on the tree roots.
Boardmember LaMastra questioned the width of the extra roof. Ms. McMillian indicated it is 6 feet.
Audience Participation: (none)
Board Discussion:
Boardmember Jackson brought up the correspondence received from neighbor Greg Redder. Beals
read the email to the board. Mr. Redder states on the surface he was opposed to this variance but
requested additional information. Beals emailed the application to Mr. Redder, who responded that he
will defer to the adjacent neighbor as this structure does not present any direct conflict to Mr.
Redder’s property.
Boardmember McCoy asked where Mr. Redder’s property is located. Beals confirmed Mr. Redder
resides on the other side of Purdue Road and pointed it out on the map. The surrounding neighbors
were also notified of this variance in the same manner as Mr. Redder.
Boardmember Shields was in favor of this variance. There is still a 9-foot setback to the property line
and the neighbors haven’t expressed any issues.
Boardmember LaMastra approved with the condition that tree is preventatively treated. She has
spoken with the City Forester and they do have methods for ensuring trees will not get emerald ash
borer. Given that the porch is what prevents the shed from being in the setback, if the tree is the
limiting factor, we need to maintain that tree.
Boardmember Jackson was also in support. She has a hard time making a hardship case, other than
the fact that the foundation has already been poured. It’s common that people don’t know permits are
required for sheds in this town. Without any neighbors here to speak against the variance, this would
be nominal and inconsequential.
Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA180046 for the
following reasons, the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the physical condition of
the existing tree on the property limits the ability to comply with the code, the encroachment
is from 2 feet to 6 feet along the length of the wall. Therefore, the strict application of the
standard results in an exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical
conditions unique to the property, not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
Boardmember LaMastra added a friendly amendment, accepted by Boardmember Long and
seconded by Shields, to ensure that the applicant meets with the City Forester and that they
review how to protect the tree.
Vote:
Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 February 14, 2019
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried.
2. APPEAL ZBA190001 - APPROVED
Address: 110 Boardwalk Drive
Owner: The Dunlap DD Trust
Petitioner: Schlosser Signs
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G)
Project Description:
This is a request to allow a sign to be 12.08 feet in height as measured from street grade and setback
10 feet from the property line. The allowed maximum sign height is 10 feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property was
previously a restaurant and has been converted into an urgent care. With the conversion, they’ve
asked to relocate an old sign. The sign is measured from grade at the gutter or flow line in the right of
way, and measures about 12 feet in height. The maximum height the sign can be at a 10-foot setback
from the property line is 10 feet high. The request is for an additional 2.08 feet of additional sign
height. A permit was issued for the new sign, but it was not until city staff was onsite afterwards that
they realized the sign height was over the max height of 10 feet. The applicant has now requested a
variance to keep the sign in place. The sign structure is what was relocated, and then they refaced
the sign to reflect the new business.
Boardmember Shields requested clarification on where measurements are taken. Beals specified
they measure from the grade at the gutter or curb, from pictures you can see there is quite a steep
grade difference on the site, this carries on through the whole block face.
Boardmember Long wanted to know where the sign was located previously. Beals indicated on the
pictures. Long questioned how the previous sign was in compliance. Beals did not know when the
permit was issued for the previous sign, but it could have been in compliance at that time.
Boardmember LaMastra wanted to know if the rest of the wall signage on the property is in
compliance. Beals confirmed that it is in compliance regarding square footage and location.
Discussion regarding if the sign is a pole on the bottom with a metal apron around it, that is most
likely the case, will confirm with the applicant.
Applicant Presentation:
Petitioner, Erin Garcia with Schlosser Signs, 3597 Draft Horse Court, addressed the board. Ms.
Garcia confirmed that the structure of the sign includes poles and a pole cover or apron. This was an
existing sign that was moved over. When the new sign faces were submitted, then the apron and
cabinet around the sign face were repainted. Schlosser Signs installs signs for Med Express. The
zoning reviewer, Schlosser Signs, and the customer all assumed the grading would be similar to the
original location. No one thought that it would be measured differently upon inspection. Schlosser
Signs purposely moved the location to make sure the setback would satisfy the 10-foot sign height.
Ms. Garcia agreed that the previous sign location was equally as high if not higher. It was her
understanding the previous sign was approved under old code. This sign had been refaced with Med
Express and was grandfathered in at the previous location.
Boardmember Meyer inquired as to how much effort it would take to reduce the height of the sign by
2.08 feet. Ms. Garcia explained that they proposed about 4 different options with the customer. It
would be virtually impossible to use the existing sign structure and reduce the height. If this variance
is not granted, they would have to produce a new sign and have it installed in the new location for
around $10,000. The customer would be able to reuse the faces, just not the structure.
Boardmember LaMastra asked if we believe the grade is equal, then this sign would have probably
been a non-conforming sign where it was located previously. Beals confirmed this is the case.
LaMastra stated that we relocated a non-conforming sign.
Audience Participation: (none)
Board Discussion:
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 February 14, 2019
Boardmember Jackson stated this is nominal and inconsequential. This is 2 feet out of compliance
and it doesn’t seem detrimental to the public good. Sight lines for turning the corner are still held. All
other aspects of the sign are in compliance.
Boardmember Shields agreed, measuring from the flow line presents a challenge. He doesn’t see any
issues with the sign as is.
Motion:
Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190001 because the variance is
not detrimental to the public good, there are significant grade changes from public right of
way to the property, the sign was existing in a different location, therefore the variance 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: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried.
3. APPEAL ZBA190002 - DENIED
Address: 936 Kimball Road
Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5)
Project Description:
This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 36 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 1152 square
foot accessory building is 352 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this
size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal
house being built.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. Before this
neighborhood was platted, there was a residential house on the corner, and it had an accessory
building in the backyard. In time, this property was platted and developed into single family homes.
When the home was built on the subject property, they kept the original accessory building in the
rear. This is a one-story building, approximately 6 to 7 feet tall. The owner decided to demolish this
building and start construction of a new building. The applicant failed to pull a building permit before
commencing constructing of the new building. The City issued a stop work order, which required the
owner to submit a building permit application. Upon submitting the application, it was found that the
accessory structure was too large for current code. Current standards allow an accessory building to
be up to 800 square feet in floor area. The proposal for this building is approximately 1152 square
feet of floor area. The old building was one story that was approximately 1200 square feet. The old
building has been partially demolished, the owner left part of the structure to help protect his tools, but
Beals believes the old building will be completely demolished when the new structure is completed.
The new building is taller than the primary building on site. The new building as proposed does meet
height restrictions and setbacks. However, it is too large in square footage for an accessory building
in this district. There was correspondence received from a neighbor.
Boardmember Long established this is RL zone and the maximum height for an accessory building is
28 feet.
Boardmember Shields confirmed the proposed new building meets all setbacks. Beals agreed that
only size is the issue.
Boardmember Meyer requested to view the slide of the primary residence with the accessory building
behind it. Beals confirmed the primary residence is not to the maximum allowable height, and the
accessory building can be higher in elevation than the primary residence. The primary building could
have two stories.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 February 14, 2019
Boardmember Jackson asked if the accessory building is allowed to be bigger in floor area than the
primary structure. Beals confirmed that it is, but when looking at a variance they must keep in mind at
what point a structure becomes primary versus subordinate.
Applicant Presentation:
Larry Dietz, 936 Kimball Road, addressed the board. When looking from the street view, the peak of
the accessory building is 19.8 feet in height, which is about 4 feet taller than the primary building. His
intent is to match the existing structure with siding and color to ensure it is aesthetically pleasing. Mr.
Dietz would like to get his RV and boat out of the street view and into the new structure. The current
structure isn’t even tall enough for his truck to fit inside. Mr. Dietz thinks this building will improve the
street view. He anticipates a comment from the neighbor to the north regarding the shadow of this
building. Mr. Dietz submitted additional pictures to show that shadow today. He consulted an
individual at CSU about the elevation of the sun throughout the year and how much of a shadow this
building will cast.
Boardmember Jackson requested the length of the applicant’s RV. Mr. Dietz replied 27 feet, 6 inches.
He does plan to purchase a newer model, and that is why the wall height of the structure is taller.
New model RV’s are about 12 feet, 6 inches, so he has included a 14-foot overhead doorway to allow
the air conditioner and other top units to clear the doorway.
Boardmember Long wanted to know if the applicant was aware that he needed a building permit. Mr.
Dietz confirmed that he was aware. He started this project in 2014 and met with several people in the
building permit department and was met with resistance. He was frustrated with the rejection and
went ahead and proceeded forward with his project anyway.
Boardmember LaMastra asked if the building were to shrink 30% in size, could both the RV and boat
still fit inside. Mr. Dietz says it could not. LaMastra asked if he could fit one of the two, and Mr. Dietz
said he could. With the current posts and $4,000 worth of roof trusses already standing, it would be
difficult. He doesn’t know how to shrink the size and still get both the boat and RV off the street view.
Boardmember Meyer questioned when Mr. Dietz decided to move forward without a building permit,
was he aware the structure was not in compliance with the Land Use Code? Mr. Dietz said no.
Boardmember Jackson inquired if he had a general contractor as there is a company listed on the
sketches. Mr. Dietz replied he does not have a general contractor, he is doing the work himself.
However, the structure is engineered. All materials were purchased from Menards in Cheyenne, they
are engineered trusses out of central Nebraska and the plans do have an engineer’s stamp.
Boardmember Jackson confirmed with Mr. Dietz that the engineer is licensed in Colorado.
Boardmember LaMastra requested to know more about Mr. Dietz’s frustration with the building permit
process. Mr. Dietz replied in order to tear down the old building he had to go through the process to
establish if it was a historical building, then establish if there was asbestos. He started to dig the
footings for the posts of the new structure, and when he approached the building permit department,
he was told about the setbacks. Originally, he wanted the structure closer to his back fence to allow
for longer driveway to maneuver the RV and boat into the doorway. He’s actually using part of the
foundation from the old building, which is 16 feet off the back fence. That would be a storage area for
tools, garden tractor, lawn mowers, etc. LaMastra asked if he was made aware of the height
restrictions during this process of meeting with the permit staff. Mr. Dietz said he was not. There was
a young gentleman who requested engineered drawings, and for Mr. Dietz to submit everything on a
thumb drive. Mr. Dietz stated he is not a technical person and he is retired. He did not have the
knowledge or the people to do this for him, so instead he started digging holes.
Boardmember Jackson inquired if this structure was permitted, Mr. Dietz confirmed that it is not.
Boardmember Shields asked if Mr. Dietz was aware of the size limit requirement. Mr. Dietz stated he
was not. Shields specified there are two vehicles both 9 feet in width, and the proposed building is a
36 feet wide. Mr. Dietz confirmed this is correct. There are two doorways, one is 14 feet to allow for
the RV and the second door is 10 feet high for the boat. If he parked everything just right, he could
also fit his truck to get it off the street.
Boardmember Meyer wanted to confirm the building has been engineered by a licensed structural
engineer. Mr. Dietz clarified, it wasn’t engineered by them, he did it himself. Then, per the building
department’s request, he retrieved a stamp by an engineer.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 February 14, 2019
Boardmember Long clarified the trusses were engineered. After the fact, an engineering company
was brought in and listed which items were in compliance, as well as 8 items that need to be
addressed. What is currently built is not properly structured.
Boardmember Meyer questioned reusing the existing foundation and asked when that previous
structure built. Mr. Dietz clarified he is not reusing existing foundation. All the posts were buried 4 feet
deep with concrete, with 6 inch by 14 inch diameter padding at the bottom of each post. He cut the
existing foundation to plant those posts, what is being reused is the concrete slab.
Audience Participation:
Cynthia Harris, 931 Kimball Road, lives directly across the street from the applicant. Ms. Harris has
owned this residence for 22 years. She is in full support of this variance. It replaces another building
with a larger footprint. The new structure will increase property values in the area, it is safe as
confirmed by a structural engineer, and it’s architecture keeps with the buildings in the neighborhood.
It will provide safe and secure storage for the RV, removing it from view and protecting it from
vandalism. The attractive new building is a welcome asset.
Patty Jeffries, 2804 West Elizabeth Street, lives directly south of the applicant. She has no
reservations about this variance and does not anticipate that this would negatively affect her property
value. The consolidation of all the vehicles into the structure will be a vast improvement for her line of
sight. The area of the previous structure will be a patio upon completion, which is better than what
she currently sees.
Stefanie DeAngelis, 930 Kimball Road, lives directly north of the property. She is very bothered about
the size of the barn and has also submitted a written statement. The City determined that the
structure is illegal, twice. There is no reason the applicant needs or deserves to exceed the 800
square foot maximum. His illegal tactics to build an illegal structure of illegal size should be enough to
deny his variance. Even the slightest possibility this behavior could be rewarded with a positive
outcome seems like a serious flaw in our city’s codes and an invitation for all of us to cheat the
system. Ms. DeAngelis has looked all over Fort Collins for a structure like this in a back yard and
haven’t found anything like it. An airplane would fit in, with extra room. This building would be fine in
another zoning district, on a farm or in a commercial or industrial area, but not in a residential
neighborhood. Ms. DeAngelis asks that the zoning codes be upheld in her neighborhood without an
HOA.
Boardmember LaMastra revisited the question she asked Mr. Dietz regarding if he reduced the
structure would he be able to fit both the boat and RV in it, and he said no. The email Ms. DeAngelis
sent on Jan 31, 2019 states 800 square feet would allow room for parking his RV, for ample storage,
a workshop area, and the parking of his boat or another vehicle. There seems to be a conflict on what
would fit in this structure. Ms. DeAngelis stated Larry is actually saying he won’t be able to alter the
structure that he illegally built. However, he could get a building engineered at 800 square feet with a
single sliding door that would be built to city code that would allow him to fit both of those vehicles in it
side by side. As previously stated, they are only 9 feet wide. He does not need 36 feet in width to fit
those items inside. Except for the fact that he has main support structures in the middle of the barn
and two sliding doors instead of one. It would require that he would have to take down what he’s built
illegally, then reengineer, redesign, and get permits.
Boardmember LaMastra asked if Ms. DeAngelis is more bothered by the footprint or the height. Ms.
DeAngelis does not agree with the height but is most bothered that when she looks out her window or
out her patio now all she sees is a giant warehouse. If he reduced the length by 11 feet it would make
a significant difference. A third of the structure is a substantial reduction. Boardmember LaMastra
clarified it would come further from her property line, but the elevation and height would be the same.
Ms. DeAngelis agreed, but also brought up if they had to reengineer the structure, it could be in a
different location or different dimensions. When the structure started to go up the applicant’s wife told
her they had permits in place. Otherwise, she would have contacted City staff that same day.
Boardmembers inquired as to how and when was it determined the building had no permit. Beals is
not sure if we received a phone call or if a building inspector was just in the area, but an inspector
saw the structure and issued a stop work order. The applicant might be able to better address the
length of time between when construction started and when the stop work order was placed.
Boardmember LaMastra asked Ms. DeAngelis about the existing structure versus the new structure.
The existing structure is significantly longer. If the height is in compliance, and part of the backyard is
transitioned into an open courtyard, this might improve your side yard area. Ms. DeAngelis stated the
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 February 14, 2019
previous building was only 6 feet tall on her side of the property. Growing season sunlight will not
affect her yard or plantings. The shadow cast from the building comes to the edge of her patio. When
out in her yard or sunroom, it’s completely changed the light through the winter. As far as the previous
building goes, it did not bother her. She wants them to be able to do what they want with their
property, but this building is not acceptable.
Sandy Dietz, 936 Kimball Road, applicant’s wife addressed the board. This building is not going to
look like a warehouse. It will match the primary building, with siding and roof in the same colors. Ms.
Dietz wants the board to be aware that the neighbor illegally put unstamped letters into the
surrounding neighbor’s mailboxes. She never told Ms. DeAngelis that they had acquired a permit.
This structure will enhance the neighborhood. The existing structure was dilapidated and falling apart,
this is a big improvement.
Mr. Dietz says he had applied for a building permit when they had the discussion with Ms. DeAngelis.
The permit application was rejected because he wanted to place it within 10 feet of back fence to
allow for a bigger driveway. Mr. Dietz wanted more space to turn a 27-foot RV with a 12 foot pick up,
or an 18 foot boat. They would fit in a smaller building if you could maneuver them without a vehicle
attached. It would be very difficult to downsize the building.
Boardmember LaMastra asked Mr. Dietz to clarify that he did apply for a permit, and the only
communication he received back was regarding the setbacks. Mr. Dietz says this is correct. LaMastra
asked if we have record of that. Mr. Dietz replied that there is no record. When he took the plans in,
he spoke with a young gentleman who advised they would need a variance due to the proximity to the
back fence. This was his third or fourth time going to the building department. At that point, Mr. Dietz
decided to use the original footprint of the old building and expand upon it for the new building, while
taking down half of the old structure to open up the north neighbor’s view.
Boardmember Meyer clarified that Mr. Dietz did not formally submit a permit application at that time.
Mr. Dietz confirmed this is correct. He submitted an application recently and paid the fee, and that is
how the variance is being heard in front of the board currently.
Boardmember LaMastra reiterated that it was never communicated to Mr. Dietz that this structure
was significantly oversized. Mr. Dietz confirmed this is correct. He doesn’t remember who he met with
at the permit department, just that he was a young gentleman.
Board Discussion:
Boardmember Long stated that the real issue here is massing. RL zoning allows an extremely tall
accessory building height. He is usually in support of garages and accessory buildings. This board
looks at the public good, what is nominal and inconsequential, and if there is a hardship present. This
meets none of those. The applicant knowingly went ahead with the structure without being approved.
The staff at the building department were simply instructing him to submit plans for review.
Boardmember Jackson brought up that this goes beyond massing. It is detrimental to the public good.
She acknowledges Mr. Dietz’s frustration with the city, but the process is there for a reason: to ensure
the health, safety, and welfare of all residents. Having this building which may or may not be
engineered properly, and may or may not be built per the city standards for construction is detrimental
to the public good. Being 44% over the square footage for an accessory building is significant. She
does not see a hardship here. An 800 square foot building would accommodate the applicant’s need.
Boardmember LaMastra stated that Mr. Dietz knew he needed a permit, he chose to disregard the
process and start construction anyway, which is troubling.
Boardmember Shields agreed the process is there for a reason, everyone goes through the same
procedure. All of this would have been avoided if the applicant went about this properly.
McCoy agreed with the other boardmembers.
Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to deny appeal ZBA190002 for the following
reasons: 352 square feet is a 44% increase in the allowable square footage for an accessory
building is not nominal and inconsequantial in the context of the neighborhood, insufficient
evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property, and insufficient
evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standard in an equally
well or better way than a proposal that complies with the standard.
Vote:
Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 February 14, 2019
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried to deny the appeal.
4. APPEAL ZBA190003 - DENIED
Address: 4701 Strauss Cabin Rd
Owner: Harmony 23 LLC
Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano
Zoning District: H-C
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G)
Project Description:
Variance requested to install a second monument sign for the new Wyatt commercial property along
E. Harmony Road. The maximum number of monument signs along any frontage is one.
Staff Presentation:
Taylor Meyer excused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest.
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property
received a development approval for a multi-family complex with 368 building units on 14 acres. The
request is to build three monument signs along the property. There are two frontages: East Harmony
Road and Strauss Cabin Road. The applicant is allowed one monument sign along each frontage.
The request is to have at least two signs along Harmony Road, one at the corner and one at the far
west property line. The distance is about 1,000 linear feet along Harmony.The signs that are in place
do comply with sign code standards.
Boardmember LaMastra inquired if there are any other apartment complexes with a similar frontage
area and two signs. Beals didn’t recall another similar apartment complex. This board did approve a
variance for the HP/Broadcom commercial property across the street, allowing them to have two
signs along their property.
Boardmember Jackson requested to see one of the slides again. She asked if these were two
different properties, could they could have separate signs. Beals clarified if they were two different
properties with two different vehicle entries, then they could have separate signs. If they shared
vehicle entry, they do encourage properties to consolidate sign locations. There is no entry on
Harmony, the only entry to the property is on Strauss Cabin Road.
Boardmember McCoy inquired as to the use of the north east corner. Beals explained this is a
detention area for the wetlands.
Applicant Presentation:
Nicole Vatrano, representing DaVinci Sign Systems, addressed the board. Ms. Vatrano addressed
the previous question from Boardmember LaMastra regarding other apartment complexes. The sign
located on the corner of Harmony Road and Strauss Cabin is near the detention pond so there is a
utility easement. Therefore, they are limited in how to angle the sign, and cannot rotate it far enough
to be double sided. They wanted to put the sign on the western side of Harmony because the actual
entrance to the complex is further in on Strauss Cabin.
Boardmember LaMastra requested clarification regarding the positioning of the signs. Casey Easton,
Sign Designer and Sales Representative with DaVinci Sign Systems, addressed the board. All three
signs are one sided. The main entrance sign is turned at a 45 degree angle to fit around the retention
pond and utility easement. This sign is only visible for westbound Harmony Road traffic. The sign
higher on the west side is where they are requesting the variance. This sign is intended for eastbound
Harmony Traffic.
Boardmember LaMastra asked if there was any way to consolidate to one single sign more in the
middle and make that sign perpendicular for both directions of traffic. Mr. Easton replied there is a
sidewalk that limits the amount of space available. The main entrance sign was so tight it had to be
turned at 45 degrees to fit in. They are even using a hydrovac on the foundation because of utilities
located in the immediate area.
Multiple questions regarding the location of the signs on the site map. The sign is actually turned
perpendicular to Harmony Road, which is not reflected on the map. There is an easement and a small
portion of land dedicated to the sign. All signs meet other code requirements.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 February 14, 2019
Comment from Beals that the sign can be located in the easement, but they avoid being over any
actual pipes. Mr. Easton clarified that they have placed signs on the line previously, but in this case
that shouldn’t be an issue.
Audience Participation: (none)
Board Discussion:
Boardmember Long stated they have seen this request previously from one of the hospital sites and
Houska, where two monument signs are being requested along large property lines.
Boardmember LaMastra views the hill crest as an advantage to the visibility of the apartment
complex. This is not a hardship of the site. The problem is the ability to rotate the sign at Harmony
and Strauss to be a two-sided sign that is visible to eastbound traffic.
Boardmember Shields agrees.
Boardmember McCoy asked Beals about a similar discussion regarding a complex located on the
northwest corner of Drake and Timberline. Beals was not supporting staff liaison at that time and
doesn’t recall if a variance was in place. McCoy thinks this board denied that variance for two signs.
Hospitals and work places are different from apartment complexes. This apartment complex is highly
visible.
Boardmember LaMastra inquired if the sign would be allowed to go into the easement at Strauss
Cabin and Harmony Road to make the sign two sided.
Mr. Easton replied the main entrance sign was placed there as a result of the retention pond, drop off,
and setbacks. There is no room to turn the sign. The customer wants that corner to be the main sign
highlighting where the entrance is located.
Boardmembers reiterated that an apartment complex is different than a commercial property and that
this complex is highly visible.
Boardmember Long stated it appears there is enough room for a two-sided sign at approximately
mid-site.
Additional board discussion regarding a lack of specific hardship for this variance.
Boardmember Jackson added that nominal and inconsequential doesn’t apply and this is not
detrimental to the public good.
Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to deny appeal ZBA190003 for the following
reasons: I don’t find a particular hardship that could not be overcome by a potential other
location, I don’t see it as doing particular harm to the public good, I do not see it as being
equal to or better than a single sign along Harmony, and a second sign, which would be 100%
increase in signs on Harmony, is not inconsequential or nominal.
Vote:
Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Shields, LaMastra, Long
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried to deny the appeal.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Election of officials for 2019. Discussion regarding who would be the most appropriate.
Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve Ralph Shields elected to the Chair and
Shelley LaMastra elected as the Vice Chair.
Vote:
Yeas: Jackson, McCoy, Meyer, Shields, LaMastra, Long
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried.
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 February 14, 2019
• ADJOURNMENT
Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 14, 2019
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA190004
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 204 2P
nd
P Street
Owner/Petitioner: Jacob & Katherine Castillo
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4(D)(2)(d)
Project Description:
The variance request is to allow a new covered front porch to encroach half of a foot into the require 5-foot side-
yard setback. The existing house currently encroaches into the side yard setback approx. .33 of a foot.
COMMENTS:
1. UBackground:U
The property is part of the Buckingham Place subdivision that was platted in 1903. The original house was
built in 1944. It is unclear the number of alterations that have occurred to the house since construction.
The house was built 4.67 feet from the side property line. Current zoning regulations require a 5-foot side-
yard 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 of the .5-foot encroachment into the required 5-foot
side-yard setback and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good
• The existing house encroaches the 2” less the proposed encroachment
• The encroachment is for a porch that is open on three sides
• The length of the encroachment is 6 feet
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2.
4. URecommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190004
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 14, 2019
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA190005
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 3405 S. Timberline Rd.
Owner: 2001 Danfield LLC
Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano
Zoning District: E
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B)Table B
Project Description:
This is a request to exceed the maximum 2-foot width of a vertically oriented wall sign by 9 inches, as well as
allowing internal illumination where only indirect is permitted.
COMMENTS:
1. UBackground:U
This property was originally developed in 1978 as part of the Collindale Industrial Park subdivision. The
property recently acquired new ownership. In 2018 through the present it has gone through an extensive
remodel for a new tenant.
In 2018 the Sign Code section of the Land Use Code was updated. In this update a new sign type was
created. This sign type is the vertical sign. The vertical sign allows a sign to be display with a vertical
orientation that exceeds the height limits of a horizontal sign provided the width of the sign does not exceed
2 feet. Additionally, with this type of sign it is limited to indirect illumination.
2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See Petitioner’s Letter
3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U
Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the .5-foot encroachment into the required 5-foot
side-yard setback and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good
• The portions of the sign that exceed 2 feet in width are limited to the four letters
• Only two of the four letters exceed more than 2 inches
• The sign is not located in the residential sign district
• The property does not abut or face residential property
• The sign is on the building that is setback 150ft 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 contained in Section 1.2.2.
4. URecommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190005.
Application Request
for Variance from the Land Use Code
The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of
Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district
other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it
finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance
request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons:
(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the
property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or
topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or
hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed);
(2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally
well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested;
(3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered in the context of the neighborhood.
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any
work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that
the variance was granted.
However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month
extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must
be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed.
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m.
Variance Address Petitioner’s Name,
if not the Owner
City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship
to the Owner is
Zip Code Petitioner’s Address
Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone #
Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email
Zoning District Additional
Representative’s Name
Justification(s) Representative’s Address
Justification(s) Representative’s Phone #
Justification(s) Representative’s Email
Reasoning
Date ___________________________________ Signature ___Nicole _________Vatrano ______________________________
12/5/2018
Additional Notes Regarding Signage
Actual proposed sign will be much smaller at 13'-3 3/4"
13'-6" above grade
Per sign #3 "mad" will be orange acrylic faces and "wire" will
be white acrylic faces. (not the black shown here)
Tower Structure projects out 6' from east elevation
13'-3 3/4"
6'-0"
3'-0"
11'-6"
2'-7 3/8"
2'-9"
2'-1 5/8"
250'-0"
Proposed Vertical Sign
200'-0"
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 14, 2019
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA190006
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 717 Eastdale Dr.
Owner: Gerda Wilcox
Petitioner: Jeff Gaines
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7.E.3, 4.7.E.4, 3.8.19(A)(6)
Project Description:
The variance request is to encroach 3.5 feet into the required 5-foot side-yard setback and 3.5 feet into the
required 5-foot rear-yard setback. Additionally, the eaves on the side and rear to be a 0-foot setback when a
2.5-foot setback is required.
COMMENTS:
1. UBackground:U
This primary house originally built in 1949 and the property is part of the Eastdale Park subdivision. The
primary building was built without an attached garage. The property is currently zone N-C-L. Within the N-C-
L zone district accessory structures are required to meet the same setbacks as the primary building.
In 2008 the property received a variance to build a shed encroaching into the rear-yard setback. This
variance was granted mainly on the limited ability to place the structure in compliance without having to
remove existing trees.
Currently there is a large tree that sits north of the proposed carport location.
2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See Petitioner’s Letter
3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U
Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the 3.5 feet encroachment into the rear-yard and
side-yard setbacks with the eave at a 0 foot setback for the rear-yard, with the condition that eave in the
side-yard is setback 2 feet and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good
• A mature tree prevents the carport to be place further north
• Existing grade changes on the property limit the size and placement of the structure
• The carport is open on four sides
Therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the
exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
4. URecommendation:
Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA190006.
1
Explanation of Variance Request for 717 Eastdale Drive
This variance request seeks a reduction in the NCL district 5’ side and rear alley setbacks
for a small, open carport cover to be constructed on four posts over an existing flagstone single
car parking pad at the southwest corner of this lot. The requested setbacks are 1’-6” for both
the alley and side, with eaves kept within the property lines.
The owner has no intention of enclosing this structure at any point, and doing so would
be precluded for several reasons:
• Due to the small size of the structure, it would not be useable to park a car inside if
enclosed.
• The existing flagstone parking pad would not be conducive to later enclosing as would
be the case for a new concrete pad.
• A building permit would be required for enclosing the structure, and doing so in a
manner acceptable to the building department would be very difficult given the limited
fire separation distance to the side property line.
Justification Criteria 1 – By reason of exceptional physical condition or situation unique to the
property, the strict application of the code requirements would result in undue hardship:
A number of existing constraints make locating the new cover to comply with standards
significantly more costly and negatively impactful than the requested location:
• The existing parking pad, which would be left in place, is located tight to the southwest
corner of the lot.
• The alley is a foot higher in elevation than the back of the lot. There is a retaining wall
along the alley, and the existing parking pad is built up to the alley elevation. To the east
of the pad is a walkway down at yard level and then a storage shed also at yard level.
Expanding the parking pad to the east would entail building up to alley elevation, a new
retaining wall at its edge, removal and replacement of the walk, and impacts on the
shed; all of which would make any change in location costly.
• Immediately to the north of the pad is a large, mature tree that the owner and city
would like to preserve. The existing parking pad and proposed cover are already tight to
this tree, and no further shift to the north would be possible without removal of major
limbs.
2
Justification Criteria 3 - Proposal will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood:
The requested setback reductions for this small structure are unlikely to stand out in the
context of the neighborhood and alley:
• Structures small and large are found well within side and rear setbacks
throughout the NCM and NCL districts
• The primary context for this structure is the alley it sits in, running behind
Eastdale drive in an ‘L’ shape and connecting Stover and Laurel. In this alley,
multiple small sheds and structures are in place in similar locations at rear
corners of lots. Because it is adjacent to lots off Stover, Eastdale, Locust, Kenroy
Court, Colorado Street, and Laurel, which have a variety of configurations, there
is not a standard building pattern that would cause this structure to stick out.
There is very little view of the structure possible from Stover or Eastdale.
• On this lot in particular, two small sheds are already in place 2’ off the alley. The
larger, 16’X8’ shed adjacent to the proposed structure was approved for its
location by variance with support of neighbors in 2008.
• The proposed structure has a similar height and size to the existing shed, and,
being open on four sides, would block little openness not already blocked by the
large tree and shed.
• No view would be blocked along the alley by the structure.
-,
#
-!!,
-
"
.
( *"
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 14, 2019
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA190007
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 131 S. Sherwood St.
Owner: Sharon Getz
Petitioner: Jeff Gaines
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8 (D) 3, 4.8 (E) 3
Project Description:
The variance request is to increase the allowed floor area in the rear-half of the lot. The maximum allowed floor
area in the rear-half is 701 square feet. The proposal brings the total to 1283.5 square feet in the rear-half. The
existing structure already exceeds the maximum floor area in the rear-half. An additional variance request is to
allow an attached garage addition to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback.
COMMENTS:
1. UBackground:U
This property was platted with the original town plat for the City of Fort Collins. It is part of Lot 1 of Block 71.
In time Lot 1 was divided into the three different parcels. The north parcel which is half of the original lot is
now addressed 125 S. Sherwood. The other half of Lot 1 was divided into 2 parcels: the subject property
that addresses off S. Sherwood, and the southwest parcel that is addressed 508 W. Oak. The resulting
division of the original Lot 1 left the subject property with a small amount of square footage.
The house on the subject property was originally constructed in 1908. It is unclear the number of remodels
or alterations that have occurred since its original construction. This house was placed at a greater setback
than current setback standards. This placement results in a greater portion of the building’s square footage
to be in the rear half of the lot.
The house on the property addressed 508 W. Oak Street was originally constructed in 1910. This property
is required a 5-foot setback from the shared property line because it is considered a side yard.
2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See Petitioner’s Letter
3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U
Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the increase allowable floor area in the rear-half of
the lot to 1,283.5 and to encroach 10 feet into the required 15 rear-yard setback and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good
• The existing structure almost doubles the required front setback, placing a majority of the existing
building in the rear half of the lot
• The increase of allowable floor area does not exceed maximum for the overall lot
• The shared property line is considered a side property line for the west abutting neighbor
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2.
4. URecommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190007.
1
Explanation of Variance Request for 131 South Sherwood Street
This variance request seeks the following modifications to Fort Collins NCM district standards:
• An increase in lot rear FAR to allow an upstairs bathroom to be added on the second
story over the existing house, as well as a small attached garage and connecting link
to be added onto the west side of the house off the existing first story.
The allowable rear floor area for this lot is 701 square feet, at 33% of the rear
half of the lot per NCM standards. The existing house is 90 square feet over this
limit, at 37%. The proposed upstairs bathroom would add 76 square feet, and
the proposed garage addition would add 317 square feet, bringing the total
overage to 483 square feet, at 55%.
• A decrease in the lot rear setback to allow space for the attached garage.
The required rear setback in the NCM district is 15’ for conditions other than an
alley, which applies to this lot. This proposal seeks a reduction to 5’, which is the
equivalent of a side or rear-alley setback in the NCM district.
The homeowner, Sharon Getz, has lived at 131 South Sherwood for many years, having
first bought it as a dilapidated duplex in 1984 and working over the next several years to fix it
up into a single family home. After some intervening years and other homes, Sharon again
bought this house in 2006 as an abandoned foreclosure, and again worked to fix the home back
up. Sharon cares deeply about both this house and the neighborhood. Her goals for this
project are to make the house safer and more suitable for aging in place, as well as more visitor
friendly for her children and grandchildren.
Floor plans have been included in the variance materials to aid in understanding the
proposed additions. As part of preparing the first floor of the house for aging in place, the
existing bathroom is to be remodeled to include a walk in shower instead of the current tub
shower. A tub would instead be located upstairs in the proposed second bathroom. Laundry
space would be moved down to the first floor and accommodated in a small connecting link as
part of the proposed garage addition. Finally, the garage would give Sharon a secure and
sheltered place to park.
These improvements would help make the house functional for years to come for
Sharon, and have been approached with the goal of keeping the scope and scale of changes to
the existing house to a minimum. While there is plenty of space within the lot’s total FAR limit
to add the proposed additions, due to physical constraints of the lot, as well as location and
layout of the existing house, there would be no suitable way to add on without the requested
modifications from NCM standards. At the same time, given the small size of the existing home
and unobtrusiveness of the requested additions, they should not be detrimental to the public
good.
2
Justification Criteria 1 – By reason of exceptional physical condition or situation unique to the
property, the strict application of the code requirements would result in undue hardship:
At 85’ deep, this is one of the shallowest lots in the NCM district, and the existing one-
and-a-half story house sits mostly in the rear half as a result. At 50’ wide, and 4,250 square
feet, this is also one of the smaller lots in the NCM district. Still, with downstairs and half story
upstairs totaled (see later discussion on upstairs floor area), this small 1,308 square foot home
is 754.5 square feet under the allowable lot FAR of 2,062.5 square feet. The proposed additions
would add 393 square feet to the house, still leaving the house 361.5 square feet under the
allowable lot FAR.
For the proposed additions, the rear half of the lot is the best option for adding space,
both from the perspective of the character of the house itself and that of its place in the
neighborhood. The house is landmark eligible and follows the generous front setbacks typical
along Sherwood St. In the front half of the lot facing east toward Sherwood, the house features
a one-and-a-half story gable with historic windows, and covered porch toward the corner
intersection. While buildable space exists towards the front and in front of the house that is not
in the rear half of the lot, doing so would have the greatest detriment to preserving the house,
as well as involve much greater construction impact. Locating the garage in the rear of the lot
also affords the greatest possible distance between the proposed new driveway and the
intersection of Sherwood and Oak.
Justification Criteria 3 - Proposal will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood:
In considering the rear FAR modification, it is important to stress that this is, and will
continue to be, a modestly sized home for the neighborhood. NCM standards include all floor
area, including that under 7’-6” in height, in the primary dwelling; but exclude this area in
accessory buildings. Were the low ceilings and minimal volume of the half-story upstairs
accounted for in the same way as in an accessory, this is currently a 1,006 square foot house,
and would be 1,378 square feet with both proposed additions.
The new house currently under construction next door to the north of this lot will be
3,188 square feet, close to three times the size of this house. In terms of height, this house will
continue to have a 23’ height to top of ridge, while the new neighboring home will have a 30’
height to top of ridge. A plan and elevation of this house with proposed additions in relation to
the new neighboring house has been provided. The changes in massing proposed for this
house are unlikely to stand out in general in the neighborhood, let alone in the context of the
larger houses like the one next door that can be built in the full depth lots along Sherwood.
While the garage addition would occupy currently open yard area at the rear of the lot,
its impact on openness behind the house is mitigated in several ways. First, it is pushed back
against the north setback line, and is set back from the south edge of the house. This preserves
3
a pocket of open space toward Oak Street in the southwest corner of the lot. This open area is
reinforced by the generous ROW width and detached sidewalk along Oak Street, with the
garage sitting 45’ back from the street. Second, the garage addition would be compact in
volume, stepping well down from the height of the existing house. This would continue to
define the existing open area behind the house. Given the size of the new house under
construction to the north, the garage addition would not block out any view or openness from
Oak Street not already to be obstructed by the neighbor. Instead, the garage addition’s
presence would only serve to screen a small lower portion of the neighboring home’s south
façade.
When viewed in the larger context of the neighborhood, the reduction in rear setback
being requested for this lot would be difficult to recognize or distinguish from side or alley
conditions where 5’ is the requirement. While shallow corner lots are common, there is no
prevailing pattern for their size, relationship to rear-adjacent neighboring lot, or layout of
structures. Many such lots feature existing buildings within the 15’ rear setback for conditions
other than an alley, and in many cases these setbacks are well under 5’. Below are examples of
nearby shallow corner lots with detached garages in a similar position to the proposed garage
addition (printouts have been included with the application materials):
• 431 W. Oak
• 228 S. Sherwood (garage is on side, not rear, property line)
• 129 S. Whitcomb
• 301 S. Whitcomb (driveway comes off front in this case)
• 431 W. Mountain
• 529 W. Mountain
!
"
&'(
"
#
$%
&'(
,
),"
,
& $ $'
& $ $'
-.
!
(
,
*
&'(
!$%," $%,
($ ,
* %$&,
"
#
(
&'(
&'(
'
"
'
"
&'(
/
"
/
"
&'(
ZBA190007 – 131 S. Sherwood
1
ZBA190007 – 131 S. Sherwood
2
ZBA190007 – 131 S. Sherwood
3
2/8/2019
131 South Sherwood Variance Request
To Whom It May Concern:
I have had the opportunity to review plans and renderings of the proposed second story
bathroom and first story garage additions at 131 South Sherwood St. I do not feel these
changes will have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood, and support approval of
modifications to the NCM District rear lot floor area limitation and rear setback limitation to
allow this project to be undertaken.
Sincerely,
Signature
Address
Maria Lourdes Smith
508 W. Oak
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 14, 2019
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA190008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 140 N. Bryan Ave.
Owner: James & Meaghan Nally
Petitioner: Heidi Shuff
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(D)(3)
Project Description:
The variance request is to construct a rear 586 square foot addition to the existing 768 square foot home at 140
N Bryan St. The addition is within the overall allowable square footage for this 5207 square foot lot, but is 142
square feet over the 650 square feet allowed in the rear half of the lot.
COMMENTS:
1. UBackground:U
This property was platted in 1924. On the block, the subject property is located, the original plat only had
lots that faced LaPorte Ave. In time, the two west lots were divided into three parcels that face Bryan Ave.
This three-parcel division created parcels that were less than the typical depth and smaller than the
minimum lot size in the current N-C-L zone district 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 approval of an increase of 142 square feet of floor area in the
rear-half of the lot and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good
• The existing lot depth is less then the typical lot depth
• The existing front setback exceeds the required 15 feet, limiting the addition to the rear-half of the
lot
• The increase of floor area does not exceed the allowable floor are for the entire lot
• The proposed addition is 1 story within context of the existing structure.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2.
4. URecommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190008.
715 W. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
February 12, 2019
City of Fort Collins
Zoning Board of Appeals
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Variance Request for 140 N. Bryan Street
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of my clients, James and Meaghan Nally, I am requesting a variance to Section 4.7(D)(3) of the
Fort Collins Land Use Code, which states that the allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. They are proposing to
construct a 586 SF one-story addition at the back of their existing 768 SF one-story home at 140 N. Bryan
Street, which would require a variance to allow an additional 142 SF over the 650 SF allowed in the rear
half of their lot. We believe their small, shallow lot creates a unique hardship. The lot is only 5,207 SF,
whereas the minimum lot size in the NCL zone district is 6,000 SF, and is only 100 feet deep. Additionally,
their existing home is set back approximately 20’-9” from the front property line (vs. the 15’ required
front yard setback), shifting their home and the proposed addition further into the rear half of their lot.
The homes within the immediate area are predominantly 1-story, and therefore a 1-story addition at the
rear of our home is the contextually appropriate design solution to maintain consistency with the scale of
the existing neighborhood.
Lastly, we believe the proposed addition would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code
except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. We are
asking for a variance of 142 SF over the allowable 650 SF in the rear half of the lot based on their lot area,
which is an additional 22%. Additionally, the proposed addition has a low profile, as it’s a 1 story addition
with a roof pitch to match the existing house. Even with the proposed addition, they would still be well
within the total allowable square footage for their lot (1,673 SF proposed vs. 2,041 SF allowed).
Thank—you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Shuff
Studio S Architecture, LLC
Phone: 970.231.1040
e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com
6,'(
<$5'
6(7
%$&.
5($5<$5'
6(7%$&.
)5217<$5'
6(7%$&.
6,'(
<$5'
6(7
%$&.
(;,67,1*
+286(
(;,67,1*
*$5$*(
1%5<$1$9(18(
$//(<
352326('
6725<
$'',7,21
352326('
&29(5('
'(&.
3URSHUW\$GGUHVV 1%U\DQ6WUHHW
3URSHUW\2ZQHU 0HDJKDQDQG-DPHV1DOO\
2ZQHU
V3KRQH -DPHV
0HDJKDQ
3DUFHO1R
/HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ 6)72)/276$1'%/.%$%%,77)7&
=RQLQJ'LVWULFW 1&/
6XEGLYLVLRQ %$%%,776
6HWEDFNV
)URQW<DUG )HHW
5HDU<DUG )HHW
6LGH<DUG )HHW
/RW6L]H 6) DSSUR[LPDWHO\¶[¶
)ORRU$UHD5DWLR 6)
$OORZDEOH7RWDO)ORRU$UHD 6)
$FWXDO)ORRU$UHD
' :
/,9,1*5220
)5217
325&+
.,7&+(1
%('5220
%$7+ /$81'5<
&/2 &/26(7
%$&.'(&.
%('5220
0$67(5
%('5220
0675
&/2
&/2
*$5$*(
1(:3$175<&$%,1(76
08'5220
83
&5$:/
63$&(
0(&+
5220
6725$*(
&/2
+$//
&5$:/
63$&(
%('5220
%$7+
68033,7(;$&7
/2&$7,217%',1
),(/'
ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH
IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR
SKRQH
HPDLO KHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP
6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1
1$//<5(6,'(1&(
%5<$1$9(
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
# 5%#.' Á
241215'&$#5'/'062.#0
ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH
IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR
SKRQH
HPDLO KHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP
6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1
1$//<5(6,'(1&(
%5<$1$9(
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
# 5%#.' Á
241215'&'#56'.'8#6+10
# 5%#.' Á
241215'&5176*'.'8#6+10
#' 5%#.
&8+'9ÁÁÁÁ5176*'9 5176*'#56
ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH
IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR
SKRQH
HPDLO KHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP
6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1
1$//<5(6,'(1&(
%5<$1$9(
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
# 5%#.' Á
241215'&0146*'.'8#6+10
# 5%#.' Á
241215'&9'56'.'8#6+10
#' 5%#.
&8+'9ÁÁÁÁ0146*'9 0146*'#56
#' 5%#.
&8+'9ÁÁÁÁ5176*'9 5176*9'56
0675
%$7+
5(/2&$7(
(;67%('5220
:,1'2:72
1257+:$//
/,1(16
ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH
IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR
SKRQH
HPDLO KHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP
6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1
1$//<5(6,'(1&(
%5<$1$9(
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
# 5%#.' Á
241215'&(+456(.1142.#0 6)(;,67,1*6)1(: 6)
([LVWLQJ+RXVH 6)
3URSRVHG$GGLWLRQ 6)
([LVWLQJ'HWDFKHG*DUDJH 6)
7RWDO 6)
$OORZDEOH)ORRU$UHDRQ5HDURIORW
6)
6)
3URSRVHG)ORRU$UHDRQ5HDURIORW
6)([VW*DUDJH6)$GGLWLRQ 6)
5HTXHVWLQJDYDULDQFHIRUDGGLWLRQDO6)LQWKHUHDURIWKHORW
ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH
IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR
SKRQH
HPDLO KHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP
6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1
1$//<5(6,'(1&(
%5<$1$9(
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
# Á 5%#.'
241215'&5+6'2.#0
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
(
*+
'*'*(
$ $
-
.
&'(
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
*+
'*'*(
)
!
$
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
!
*+
'*'*(
" $
" $
&'(
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
%
*+
'*'*(
$
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
*+
'*'*(
! (
! (
! ( $
! (
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
&
*+
'*'*(
#
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
*+
'*'*(
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
'
*+
'*'*(
! #
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
*+
'*'*(
!
#$
#$
!%
&'(
'
(!
&!'
)
)
)
*+
'*'*(
,
!
%
"
-,
#
-!!,
-
"
.
( *"
,!
%
"
"#
$
%
!!
&'#
(
"(#
$)
)
)
%
%
#
!*+
#*#*
%
%
$!
$!!
$!!
%!
$
&
,
"#
$
%
!!
&'#
(
"(#
$)
)
)
%
%
!*+
#*#*
!
!
!
"#
$
%
!!
&'#
(
"(#
$)
)
)
%
%
!*+
#*#*