Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ken Summers Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING APRIL 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 ZBA190010 Address: 936 Kimball Road Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 26 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 832 square foot accessory building is 32 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. This is a new variance request. A previous variance request was denied this year for a larger accessory building. 2. APPEAL ZBA190011 Address: 2120 W. Prospect Road Owner/Petitioner: Michael Thomas Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(e) Project Description: Variance for a pop-the-top addition to a barn home in the R-L Low Density Residential District. The addition will give the home an average height of 31 feet from grade to roof peak. This is 3 feet over the maximum building height in R-L which is 28 feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 April 11, 2019 3. APPEAL ZBA190012 Address: 131 S. Sherwood Street Owner: Sharon Getz Petitioner: Jeff Gaines Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4), 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: Variance for a half-story addition and associated eave projection to encroach into the 15-foot corner- side setback. 4. APPEAL ZBA190013 Address: 601 E. Elizabeth Street Owner: Joseph & Kate Hannah Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for the 2nd story dormer to encroach 8.33 feet into the required 15 feet rear yard setback and 8 inches into the required 15 feet street-side setback. 5. APPEAL ZBA190014 Address: 2708 Nottingham Square Owner: Stephen & Peggy Hollingshead Petitioner: Allen Curtis Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b) Project Description: This is a request for a deck to encroach 6 feet into the 20-foot front yard setback. 6. APPEAL ZBA190015 Address: 1250 E. Magnolia Street Owner: Walmart Real Estate Business Petitioner: Cathy Yockey Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B Project Description: This is a request for an 8 feet high wall sign where 7 feet is the maximum height permitted. • OTHER BUSINESS Presentation on Halligan Water Supply Project • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Shelley LaMastra 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 Stockover was absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve the February 14, 2019 Minutes. Meyer made a friendly amendment as he was excused from item 4, Long accepted the friendly amendment and Jackson seconded. Vote Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Jackson, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: The Motion was carried. Upon detailed review of the minutes, changes were unnecessary as the February 14, 2019 minutes were accurate. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190004 – APPROVED 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 approximately .33 of a foot. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 14, 2019 Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The original request asked for two setbacks, both side and front. Upon further review the front setback actually does meet the contextual setback and a variance is not needed. This request to build a new porch and to encroach on the side yard setback. The existing house is not exactly parallel to the side property line. The front porch aligns with the front of the house and is open on three sides. One column and a portion of the roof are what will encroach into the side yard setback. Applicant Presentation: Jacob Castillo, 204 2P nd P Street, addressed the board. He has been a homeowner of this property since 2005. They are constructing an addition to accommodate their growing family. They have invested in their property and this neighborhood and want to continue living here. Mr. Castillo wants to improve the property with this variance and believes it support City Plan as this does not impede the pedestrian and bike traffic in the neighborhood. This addition does not impede any access to utilities. The variance is nominal and inconsequential, especially considering the enhancement for the property and neighborhood. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember LaMastra agreed that this variance is nominal and inconsequential, and thinks the design looks great. Boardmember Jackson also supported the variance, as it enhances the look of the house within the context of the neighborhood. Boardmember Long stated the addition probably would have fit without a variance had the house not been built askew on the lot. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve ZBA190004 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing house encroaches less than 2 inches, the encroachment is for a porch that is open on three sides, and 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. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Jackson, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA190005 – TABLED Boardmember Shields made a motion, seconded by Long, to table ZBA190005 to wait for the applicant’s arrival. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Jackson, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: None The Motion was carried. 3. APPEAL ZBA190006 – APPROVED WITH A CONDITION 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. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 March 14, 2019 Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This request is for a carport along the side and rear property lines. The carport columns would be setback 3.5 feet, but eaves would extend all the way to the property line. There is an existing tree and grade difference that make it difficult to adhere to the setback requirements. Staff would suggest that the eave along the side property line be brought back at least 2 feet for water runoff onto the property. Boardmember LaMastra asked about installing a gutter instead of bringing the eave back 2 feet. Beals replied there might be a gutter already present, but in case a gutter was clogged, then 2 feet would ensure runoff would not be onto the adjacent property. Boardmember Long requested additional information regarding language present in the Land Use Code for storm water run off. Beals explained he does not think that language is present in the Land Use Code, but it is written in the storm water requirements that you cannot run your storm water onto the next property. Boardmember LaMastra was trying to determine how much water will actually be generated off of one side of a small carport with a gutter in place. Boardmember Meyer asked if there was a reason why the carport cannot be built between the two sheds as there appears to be plenty of room in that location. Beals replied that we can ask the applicant, but the doors for the two sheds are in close proximity and space is necessary to swing the doors open. Boardmember Jackson reviewed the notes regarding accessory buildings already on the property. She asked for specifics regarding which shed was built in 2008 and received a variance for encroachment, and when the other shed was built and if it received a variance as well. Beals reviewed pictures and discussed sheds, determining the middle shed most likely received a past variance. Boardmember Long clarified what shed dimensions require a variance. Beals confirmed that if a shed is less than 120 square feet and less than 8 feet in height no variance is needed. Boardmember LaMastra would like to know the reason for variance on middle shed. Boardmember McCoy questioned if there are any known storm water issues in this area. Beals is unsure if that is the case. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Gaines, 429 S. Howes St, addressed the board. Mr. Gaines is the architect that designed the carport for the owner. The goal is to keep the carport as straight forward as possible. There is an existing parking pad present in the backyard that matches the elevation of the alley. There is also a walkway going through the backyard adjacent to the parking pad that leads to the alley. Any adjustment to the carport or parking pad location would end up becoming more work than the carport itself. There is a retaining wall along the alley and around the parking pad. To shift the parking pad over to build up to the alley elevation, and rework the walkway, would all have a significant impact and cost. The issue of storm water runoff was considered. In general, it would be ideal to bring the structure further from the property line; but unless they tear apart the parking pad and walk way, they cannot shift the structure further from the property line and still have room to park a car. The neighbor to the west has a large concrete pad in the adjacent corner that currently drains onto this lot. The neighboring lot is slightly higher in elevation. Also, there is a curb that runs along the fence between the properties, so any water inside the curb stays on this property and runs down the pad towards the tree. Mr. Gaines agreed they could make a small adjustment to the structure. There are currently gutters on all sides of the carport and they could propose a one foot six-inch setback. This would keep the gutter just inside the property line. Even if water did fall into neighboring lot, it would fall onto the concrete pad and then run back onto this property. Mr. Gaines does not feel that the drainage issue is a large concern in this case. With the hip roof, gutter layout, and control over the downspouts, there is control over the water. Downspouts are proposed on the two north corners towards the house. The alley is higher than the lot and everything slopes towards this backyard. The neighbor to the west is in support of this project. Mr. Gaines confirmed it was the middle shed that had the variance granted previously. He can’t speak to the other shed as it was previously put in place, very typical to see these types of sheds in old Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 March 14, 2019 town. Regarding the question to move the parking pad between the two sheds, they are simply trying to add a nice-looking carport to the back of the lot, and not cause a lot of additional work. The photo does a good job of illustrating the existing tree in the backyard. They would not consider damaging or removing that tree for the carport. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Long emphasized that we need to ensure the water runoff has a buffer. They have seen items like this come back to the board years later for stormwater runoff concerns. Boardmember LaMastra brought up that the gutters are right under a tree, the gutters will clog. They could discuss a condition to cover the gutters. Boardmember Shields questioned whether pulling the face of the eave a few more inches from the property line would that be an easier solution. Boardmember Long doesn’t know if any gutter caps actually work. It makes sense to have more of a buffer. Boardmember Shields discussed a condition that the eave should be setback twelve inches from the property line. Boardmember Lamastra disagreed with the distance, concerned the structure will then look awkward. Boardmember Meyer would rather have a nice looking carport where it’s harder to build, than an awkward looking carport squished into this corner. Boardmember Long reminded the board this is not their focus. The applicant chose the carport location. Their focus is on the parameters of the code and the applicant can resolve further issues after the board decision. Boardmember Meyer stated from the applicant’s description, it sounds as if water falling from the west edge of the roof will come back onto the property. Boardmember Long believed the statements of the applicant, but there have been no pictures presented of the grade. We cannot control stormwater, it does not seem to comply with what we anticipate will happen. Some kind of buffer would be better. Looking at the drawings provided, the alley elevation is at 0.0, the bed is at minus 4, the grade in the yard is minus 2. From this, it appears there is already a natural hazard present. Boardmember Jackson stated they are looking at the parking pad as a hardship, and suggested infill between the parking pad and the existing shed to relocate the shed. The pad should not be the hardship as it is self-imposed. Boardmember Lamastra clarified they should discuss the rear setback in addition to the side setback. Boardmember Long agreed both should be addressed, the goal should be to keep as much water on the property as possible. Boardmember LaMastra stated that 6 inches is reasonable, but would need to be on both side and rear. Motion: Long made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190006 with the condition that the west side and south side eaves be set back a minimum of 6 inches, and find that the variance is not detrimental to public good, a mature tree prevents the carport from being placed further north, the existing grade changes on the property limit the size and placement of the structure, and the carport is open on 4 sides, therefore strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property and not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: Jackson The Motion was carried with one condition. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 March 14, 2019 4. APPEAL ZBA190007 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is on a corner lot. Originally this lot extended all the way to the alley, but was subdivided into two lots, one that fronts onto Oak and one that fronts onto S. Sherwood. With the size of this lot, a majority of the house sits on the rear half, so the allowable rear half floor area is already exceeded. The front set back along Sherwood is more than what is required in the zone district, pushing most of the house into the rear setback. The house fronting on Oak has a side yard setback of 5 feet. Along the same property line, this property fronting on Sherwood has a 15-foot setback. There is a larger house on the neighboring lot, but it also has a larger lot size. Where the garage is proposed, there is no driveway currently present, only sidewalk. Boardmember McCoy asked if it is possible for someone to request a change in their address to reconfiguration their lot. Beals confirmed that is possible, but they would need their front door to face the correct direction. It does appear there is another door onto Oak street. Boardmember Meyer questioned if a new address would change the rear setback to 15 feet, and would result in less allowable square footage. Beals agreed there are advantages and disadvantages to changing an address. Boardmember Meyer and Boardmember Long agreed these corner lots present specific challenges. These lots are seen quite often in front of the Board. Boardmember LaMastra asked if the rear square footage requirement is in place to ensure houses have a street presence. Beals confirmed this is the case, but added there are additional reasons, including the prevention of structures looming over adjacent backyards. Both Beals and Lamastra agreed the code was written long after this original structure was built. Boardmember LaMastra is more concerned with the setback than the floor area ratio, as that’s something they cannot control. Boardmember Long agreed this is the hardship they see most commonly on these type of lots. Boardmember LaMastra requested the location of the neighbor who submitted correspondence to the Board. Beals confirmed the neighbor is located directly adjacent to this property. LaMastra asked if the neighbor to the west has any large windows that would face the proposed garage. Beals will let the applicant speak to that. Applicant Presentation: Sharon Getz, 131 S. Sherwood Street, and Jeff Gaines, 429 S. Howes Street, addressed the board. Mr. Gaines believes the square footage of 1284 in the staff presentation is over by about 100 square feet, so 1184 is more accurate. Beals clarified they measure from outside wall to outside wall, and included the first and second floor. Mr. Gaines is not sure if it’s relevant to the discussion, but that’s also how he measured. An important aspect of this project is that it will remain a modestly sized house for the neighborhood, even after the additions, on a very shallow lot. Applying the rear fifty percent limitation to a lot this shallow creates some major practical difficulties. Placing the additions on the front of the house is not a practical design solution. In the context of the full depth lots present along Sherwood, it’s hard to imagine the proposed increase would cause massing detrimental to the neighborhood. In regards to the rear setback, what they are requesting is comparable to a side or alley setback and will not stand out in the neighborhood. If the house was addressed on Oak, this would be a side setback. The house was previously a duplex and that is the reason for the door Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 March 14, 2019 fronting on Oak Street. Now that Oak Street door opens into the owners bedroom, which they are planning to remove. Mr. Gaines confirmed the neighbor to the west is in support of this project. Ms.Getz explained the original design of the 2P nd P door was to be a parlor door for company to enter into a nice living room. By the time Ms. Getz purchased the property it was a duplex with a small studio in the parlor. Ms. Getz addressed the question regarding what neighboring windows would face this garage to the west. There is a fence between the properties that varies from 4 feet to 6 feet, and tall junipers along the fence. The neighbor has two windows on that side, possibly a kitchen and living space, but their view will not be changed by the proposed garage as the neighbor currently sees the fence and junipers. Boardmember LaMastra requested the maximum height of the proposed garage. Mr. Gaines confirmed 8.5 feet at the eaves and 12.5 feet at the ridge. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Long stated this appears to be a moderately sized addition in the context of the neighborhood. This has a low impact to adjacent properties. This type of lot in old town commonly has these issues and they have approved similar variances in the past. Boardmember Shields preferred to view this as 2 side yard setbacks. Shields also noted getting the importance of the neighbor’s support. Motion: Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Jackson, to approve ZBA190007 for the following reasons: 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, and 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. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Jackson, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 5. APPEAL ZBA190008 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This lot is the third from the corner and has an alley that runs along the south lot line. Originally this was one lot and was later subdivided into three lots. The proposed addition is to the rear of the house. The house is pushed back further than the required setback, therefore most of the allowable square footage is in the rear half of the small lot. There is an existing garage already on the rear half of the lot. The allowable floor area in the rear half is exceeded by 142 square feet. The addition will meet setbacks, the rear floor area is the only issue. Applicant Presentation: Heidi Shuff, with Studio S Architecture, and James Nally, 140 N. Bryan Ave, addressed the board. Ms. Shuff explained this is an exceptionally small lot. The standard minimum lot size for this zone Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 March 14, 2019 district is 6,000 square feet and this lot is about 5200 square feet. The lot is also quite narrow at 100 feet deep. The existing house is setback 20 feet from the front property line, and the minimum setback is 15 feet. Currently the house is 768 square feet, with two bedrooms and one bath. The owners want to add a master suite, a laundry room, and access to the mechanical room in basement, which is currently only accessible through a hatch off the back deck. They are only asking for 142 square feet over the allowable 650 square feet in the rear half of the lot. They are well within the allowable square footage for the lot, and the addition is one story to stay within the context of the neighborhood. Audience Participation: Mr. Nalley, 140 N. Bryan Ave, addressed the board, he is the owner of the house. The purpose of the addition is to increase the square footage of the current residence. Mr. Nalley would like to continue growing their family in Fort Collins, and only wants to go before the board this one time instead of multiple requests. Board Discussion: Boardmember Long stated this is a nice compact design, it has minimal impact. The only issue is the rear half floor ration, which is common among these lots. Boardmember Jackson agreed, this is nominal and inconsequential and keeps in context with the neighborhood. Boardmember LaMastra pointed out many of these houses are set back further than normal, which leads to this circumstance. It’s a nice design and fits well in the neighborhood context. Motion: Boardmember Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA190008 for the approval of an increase of 142 square feet of floor area in the rear half of the lot and find that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing lot depth is less than 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 area for the entire lot, the proposed addition is 1 story within the 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. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Jackson, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA190005 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The property is located on S. Timberline Road, near Horsetooth. With the recent sign code update, there is now a new type of sign that is referred to as a vertically oriented sign. This board has seen numerous requests for vertically oriented signs in the past. These signs are limited to 2 feet in width and can be 25 feet in height from grade. This sign is 13 feet in height. Illumination with vertical signs is supposed to be indirect, meaning either opaque letters that have a halo light from the back side or with spotlight on the front so the light source is not visible. This variance is asking for direct lighting coming from the letters themselves. This variance is also asking for an increased in the width of a few letters, specifically the dot on an “I” and the letters “M”, “A”, and “D”. Width extension is minimal only for letters naturally taller than others. Location of the sign is 200 feet from the road. Part of the sign will Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 March 14, 2019 be blocked by the building itself, not visible to all traffic. There are no residential properties abutting this property. The building is currently under construction. Boardmember McCoy confirmed with Beals the sign has only one face. Boardmember Shields questioned if all letters internally illuminate, Beals confirmed this is the case. Boardmember Meyer questioned the intent of not allowing internal illumination for vertical signs. Beals explained this is a new sign type and a larger sign. The indirect illumination reduces the impact of the larger sign. Boardmember Long asked about sign code and specifically if there are regulations on how much light can be produced. Long referenced the clock at the top of a city bank building. The numbers are much brighter than the older signs. It’s hard for the board to truly understand how bright the sign will be. Beals confirmed in the code there are illumination requirements. There is also a new technology present as people switch over to LED lights. It’s more difficult to measure the light emitted, there is focus on measuring the kelvin temperature to determine brightness. Per code, the brightness cannot produce a hazard. Applicant Presentation: Nicole Vatrano, DaVinci Signs, addressed the board. These letters will be manufactured by the company DSW, Ms. Vatrano can request information on the level of lumens and brightness. The brightness would not exceed the allowable limit for the sign. The reason for this variance is to match the other sign being placed on the building. The electrical scope for lighting a halo lit sign is complicated, and requires a backing behind each letter which would create damage to the building. This sign design is on a raceway so the letters are not on the building directly. The size of the sign has been enlarged so it is legible from the road. Boardmember LaMastra questioned which other sign Ms. Vatrano is referring to. She confirmed this is the street frontage sign located on the front of the building. Beals explained the other sign on the building does not require a variance because it is horizontal and is allowed internal illumination. Discussion as to the size of the sign. LaMastra recapped there are three signs total: a monument sign which is staying at the original location and being refaced, a horizontal sign on the face of the building, and this vertical sign. The square footage of all signs combined is still within code. Boardmember Jackson questioned the hours of operation for this office building. Madwire does have international business and may have business hours after dark. Boardmember Shields asked why the 24-inch width cannot be met, even with the letter ascenders. Ms. Vatrano stated if the letters themselves were shrunken down it would limit visibility from the street. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Long requested more information on the pictures presented by staff and the distance to the road. He is not as concerned about the letter height as not many buildings in the city will be 200 feet from the street. He is still somewhat concerned about the illumination. Boardmember Jackson agreed she doesn’t have issues with the size of the sign. However, it is a lot of lit signage on the building and she doesn’t see a hardship in not lighting the sign or in lighting it differently. Boardmember Meyer stated the illumination isn’t a concern for him, he understands wanting consistency among signs. The neighboring buildings shouldn’t be bothered by the illumination. The word “MAD” could be taken down to 2 feet so they are really only dealing with the dot on the “I” and the extension on the “D”. Boardmember Jackson agreed about consistency, but if this sign is allowed a variance then they might have more requests in the future. Boardmember LaMastra is still not clear on the size of the horizontal sign on the front of the building. Beals stated this is not in the residential sign district, therefore a horizontal max sign height is 7 feet tall on a building. Square footage allowance for a sign is for the entire property, property owners divide the square footage among all the signs. Ms. Vatrano submitted dimensions of the horizontal sign and Beals confirmed it is 2 feet 10 inches. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 March 14, 2019 Boardmember LaMastra stated that helps in decision making, because in this case they are not projecting much more light than other signs within code. Boardmember McCoy stated that it seems the measurements of this vertical sign were designed for a variance. The sign could have easily been designed smaller. Board discussed the measurements and the distance to the street. If this building had multiple tenants there would be many additional signs. Motion: Boardmember Jackson made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve ZBA190005 with an approval of the request to exceed the maximum 2-foot width of a vertically oriented wall sign by 9 inches, as well as allowing the internal illumination where only indirect light is permitted for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the portions of the sign that exceed 2 feet in width are limited to 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 150 feet 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. Boardmember LaMastra confirmed it is 150 feet to the public right of way and 200 feet to the asphalt. Vote: Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Jackson, Shields, Long, McCoy Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 6. APPEAL ZBA190009 – WITHDRAWN • OTHER BUSINESS There are agenda items for next month, please plan on attending. Also, Boardmember Jackson has accepted a position with the City and will no longer be allowed to serve on the Board so this will be her last meeting. Council will not be able to replace the position for a few more months due to elections. • ADJOURNMENT at 10:20 AM Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 936 Kimball Road Owner/Petitioner: Larry Dietz Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Variance Request: This variance is for partially built 32 foot by 26 foot detached RV storage pole barn. This 832 square foot accessory building is 32 square feet over the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1200 square foot horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. This is a new variance request. A previous variance request was denied this year for a larger accessory building. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U In February of this year the applicant requested a variance for an accessory building 1152 square feet in size. This request was denied. This new request maintains the same roof line as in the previous request and footprint. The difference is the proposed south wall is adjusted 10ft creating a covered area instead of an enclosed area. The covered therefore is not counted as floor area reducing the variance request to be 32 square feet over the allowable 800 square feet. The property was annexed into the city in 1970 as part of the Overland Trail Annexation. It later was subdivided into residential lots in 1977. Before the property was subdivided there was Single family home with accessory buildings that were built in approx. 1955. One of the accessory buildings remained on the lot of the subject property. This building has remained and is approximately 1,200 sf single story (7ft-8ft in height). It is a nonconforming building and is being removed. The primary house on the subject property was built in 1994 in front of the existing nonconforming accessory structure. In November of 2018 a City inspector placed a stop work order on the subject property. The proposed building was being erected without the issuance of a building permit. When the applicant submitted plans for a building it was found that the proposed structure exceeds the maximum square footage for an accessory building. The existing primary structure is one story and has 1,380 sf of floor area. The maximum height for a primary and accessory building is 28ft. Minimum setbacks are 5ft for the side yards and 15 ft for the rear yard. The proposed structure meets the setbacks and minimum height for 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 UdenialU of the additional 32 square feet of floor area and finds: Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 • The general bulk and massing of the structure is not in context with accessory buildings and therefore not nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA190010 Appeal ZBA190002 | Page 1 P E T I T I O N E R A P P E A L Date: April 5, 2019 From: Larry Dietz (Petitioner) 936 Kimball Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 To: City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding: Appeal ZBA190002 Original Variance Request: This variance is for partially built 32 ft by 36 ft detached RV storage pole barn. This 1,152 sq ft accessory building is 352 sq ft over the 800 sq ft maximum allowed for a lot of this size. It is replacing a 1,200 sq ft horse barn that existed on the property prior to the principal house being built. Project Status: The proposed pole barn structure was constructed without a Building Permit and the City of Fort Collins posted a Stop Work Order on November 30, 2018. Documentation: ● ZONING_BOARD_OF_APPEALS_AGENDA_FEB-14-2019.pdf – Agenda Item 3 (pdf Page 2); Staff Report (pdf Pages 28 through 71) ● ZONING_BOARD_OF_APPEALS_SUMMARY_AGENDA.pdf – Agenda Item 3 (pdf Page 2); Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code (pdf Pages 19 through 50) ● ZONING_BOARD_OF_APPEALS_SUPPLEMENTAL_DOCUMENTS.pdf – Photographs (pdf Page 1) (source – posted on City of Fort Collins, Zoning Board of Appeals, website, URL: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/zoning-appeals) Current Petitioner Request: The Petitioner requests the (1) status report and (2) proposed plan of action outlined below be approved. The Petitioner is grateful for the Planning & Zoning guidance and input for this residential project. The Petitioner is also thankful for the letters of support received by most (all but one) of his neighbors. This proposed structure enhances the property and neighborhood by removing the boat and RV from sight. Appeal ZBA190002 | Page 2 Basis for Petitioner Appeal: Petitioner has completely reviewed all pertinent documentation and respectfully submits this (1) current status report and (2) proposed plan of action for approval of continued construction of this structure:  The originally constructed 32 ft x 36 ft (1,152 sq ft) structure is currently downsized to an initially downsized 26 ft x 32 ft (832 sq ft) structure.  The south wall has been moved in, to facilitate this downsizing. The north wall remains unchanged.  The structure height remains unchanged at 19 ft, 4 in. tall.  Shear Engineering Corporation has been contacted for assistance and guidance in this matter.  Inspectors have visited the site. If the proposed plan of action is acceptable, then the Petitioner will perform the following:  The Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code will be withdrawn.  An appropriate Building Permit will be secured.  Renewal of a residential Demolition Permit will be secured.  Required design construction drawings for this structure have been stamped by Shear Engineering Corporation, a Colorado licensed structural engineering firm (source – Residential Alterations, URL: https://www.fcgov.com/building/res- requirements).  The downsizing will be completed.  Construction on the structure will be completed as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. I await your decision. From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road--illegal barn Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:50:34 PM Attachments: threatsletter.doc From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 4:44 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road--illegal barn Noah, I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to include the letter documenting Larry's threatening behavior after the last hearing. A copy of the letter is attached if you feel that it should be included. Thanks, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road As a follow-up to the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing for 936 Kimball Road on February 14, 2019, I would like to submit this statement documenting Larry Dietz's threatening behavior. He was upset by the Board's denial of his variance--and he blames me entirely. When Larry returned home from the hearing, he immediately began dismantling an arbor that supported a mature Virginia Creeper growing in my yard along our shared fence line. It was attached on his side of the fence, but it arched into my yard. He cut off the fully mature top of the plant and took the arbor away. I do not know the origin of the arbor as I inherited it when I purchased the house. He then began to dismantle the fence. I asked him what he was doing. He said, "I'm taking down my fence. The chain-link is attached on my side, I can do whatever I want with it." At this point, I called the Building Services Department to learn about fences. And on their recommendation, I also called the police. He did stop demolishing the fence when my parents arrived--and when I told him that I'd called the police. He then proceeded to "offer me a deal." He would "leave everything as it is," if I would "support his next variance application." He proposed chopping the first 8' off the barn and keeping the rest. This still exceeds the 800sqft maximum. The barn would not be deep enough for an RV. Thus making the 14' walls unnecessary and the height of the barn excessive without reason. I told him that I am not inclined to make a deal while he's holding my wellbeing and my fence hostage. I pointed-out that the decision isn't mine to make--that the ZBA determined that he must comply with the 800sqft maximum. And, that I'd rather just build a new fence. Larry then made threats. He said, "This is only the beginning. You started this." "I'll just never take the barn down. I'll leave it like this forever." "You asked for it." I expected hostility from the Dietz's and their friends in the neighborhood if his variance was denied. But, I have to admit I did not expect these extremes. I am not the only person in my neighborhood shocked by this building. Even the police officer that responded to my call expressed dismay and disapproval. But, no one else would get involved. Now I know why. I thought it was important to document everything. If indeed Larry does intend to re-apply for a variance, I can hope that my fence, and my dog, and my self will be safe until the hearing. Further terrorizing and threatening me seems like a poor plan. Although, I fully expect to experience the full wrath of Larry's retribution upon the resolution of this new variance request, regardless of the hearing's outcome. Sincerely, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road--illegal barn Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:51:08 PM From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 4:41 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road--illegal barn Please find the attached pictures demonstrating the pole barn as it overshadows the surrounding homes. These photos are taken from the farthest point in my yard. Please note that the surrounding homes are all single story and visually inconsequential by comparison to this structure. The "new" plans proposed for the second variance hearing do not change this structure from this perspective. I do not support a variance to exceed the 800sqft maximum. Sincerely, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road ZBA190010 – 936 Kimball Road ZBA190010 – 936 Kimball Road From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road--Statement of Opposition Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019 5:09:07 PM Attachments: 2ndwrittenstatement.doc From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 4:49 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road--Statement of Opposition Noah, Attached please find my statement of opposition for the 4/11/19 Variance hearing. I would still appreciate receiving any further information that you may receive between now and the hearing. Thanks again, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road Please allow this letter to serve as my statement of opposition to Larry Dietz's request for variance regarding his RV shed at 936 Kimball Road. I do not approve of an exception to exceed the 800sqft maximum. From the rudimentary drawings that Larry Dietz submitted with his variance application, it seems that this is the exact same structure previously denied--with one-third left unfinished. This is the same 1152sqft roof covering the same 1152sqft area. This is not a new, 832sqft building with a 10ft overhang attached to the southern side. This is the building as it currently stands--oversized, illegal and unpermitted. This is not a 'new' structure. The Zoning Board of Appeals already determined that the massing for this structure was too large and must be made to comply with the 800sqft maximum. At 1152sqft with 14 foot walls--as the building currently stands--the massing of this barn exceeds the massing of at least 12 (or 75%) of the homes on our block. Even at 832sqft with 14 foot walls, the massing exceeds 5 (or 30%) of the homes on our block. There is no reason that this structure needs to, nor should be allowed to exceed the 800sqft maximum. So, we have a building that we don't actually know is safe; and now, Larry wants to further destabilize the barn in order to "correct" his mistakes without actually removing any portion of it. Larry is just trying to re-coup as much of his investment as possible, without regard for the impact on the surrounding homes. This oversized building violates the integrity and character of our neighborhood. It is completely out of place on streets dominated by modest, single story homes. It is prominently visible from all three surrounding streets. It comes into view a full block away on Kimball Road and two blocks away at Timber Road on Elizabeth. All surrounding yards are diminished by such a large structure erected in the center of our block. Previous views of the horizon are replaced by vertical views of this barn. Openness and spaciousness are reduced to a vertical cage. Some yards are now framed entirely by this building. In one home, previous views of Horsetooth are gone. In others, direct sun exposures are severely compromised. An almost 20 foot tall, metal-roofed pole barn looks like a giant warehouse. This is not an appropriate structure for a residential neighborhood. This building negatively impacts the desirability of our properties, our property values, and the quality of life in our homes and yards. In addition to the size, this pole barn prompts many safety concerns. The Dietz's have not provided blueprints or engineering reports to support any claims of safety or code compliance. The expansive nature of clay soil is unstable and particularly unsuitable for pole barns. We have clay soil throughout our neighborhood. A soil test has not be performed. Significant inspections have been missed, including the placement of main support poles before the cement was poured. Drainage and grading performance plans have not been provided. With an 1152sqft and almost 20 foot tall metal roof, this structure will surely pose a lightening strike hazard. When Larry Dietz began construction of this barn, he knew that what he was doing was illegal. He knowingly, intentionally broke the law. This alone should disqualify him from any special considerations or variances. Asking forgiveness instead of permission has no place in Zoning and Building departments. By deliberately disregarding the requirement for a permit, Larry forfeited his right to claim ignorance. He did not make innocent mistakes. By choosing to illegally build this oversized pole barn, Larry bears full responsibility for any and all errors made during construction. He should be required to correct these errors, not be given a pathway to incorporate them. If this illegal pole barn cannot be brought into compliance with the 800sqft maximum, it should be removed. This proposed 832sqft variance diverges from the standards of the Land Use Code in more than a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of our neighborhood. I do not support a variance to allow this building to exceed the 800sqft maximum designated for our district. And, I would request that Larry reconsider his design so as to accommodate his RV while minimizing the impact to surrounding yards. Thank-you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: 936 Kimball Road--illegal barn Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019 5:09:34 PM From: stefanie deangelis <ladyflag@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 4:58 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 936 Kimball Road--illegal barn Please find the attached photos demonstrating the 'giant warehouse view' from my back patio. This view will not be changed in any way by the 'new' variance proposal. I do not support a variance to exceed the 800 sqft maximum. Stefanie DeAngelis 930 Kimball Road ZBA190010 – 936 Kimball Rd From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: Zoning Board Appeal 190010 Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 8:28:59 AM Attachments: APPEAL ZBA 190010.docx From: Jeffries,Patty <Patty.Jeffries@colostate.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 9:25 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Zoning Board Appeal 190010 Mr. Beals: I would like to submit my document for the Thursday, April 11, 2019 ZBA for the variance request 190010. Thank you. APPEAL ZBA 190010 Variance request for 936 Kimball Road Patty Jeffries 2804 W. Elizabeth St. I reiterate my support for the existing mass of the proposed pole barn at 936 Kimball (APPEAL ZBA 190002). The extra 32 sq. ft above the allowed 800 sq. ft for the new variance (APPEAL ZBA 190010) is not discernible from my perspective. The extra 32 sq. ft is the equivalent of 2/3 of my small bathroom as far as footprint goes. The proposed pole barn is necessary for the Dietzes to house their camper (no matter if it is the current one or the larger camper that the Dietzes intend to purchase), their pontoon boat, trailer (modified pick- up truck bed), all-purpose yard tractor, and workshop. There is a limited turning radius for a fifth-wheel for the camper. The height of the current camper or new camper necessitates a taller structure. By having the various vehicles housed inside the pole barn, my view will be dramatically enhanced. I will see a yard/patio replacing the west portion of the old barn and a garden on the east side of the new structure. My patio view of old barn and vehicles North West 2736 W. Elizabeth St. 2804 W. Elizabeth St. Dietz’s pontoon boat Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2120 W. Prospect Road Owner/Petitioner: Michael Thomas Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(e) Variance Request: Variance for a pop-the-top addition to a barn home in the R-L Low Density Residential District. The addition will give the home an average height of 31 feet from grade to roof peak. This is 3 feet over the maximum building height in R-L which is 28 feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annexed into the City in 1970. The primary building was built in 1952 under the jurisdiction of the County. The property has substantial grade changes. The changes result in the sloping condition from the south to the north end of the property. The minimum lot size in the R-L zone is district is 6000 square feet. The property is 37,378 square feet The minimum side-yard setback in R-L is 5 feet. The primary structure is setback is approx. 50 feet on either side. The minimum rear-yard setback in the R-L zone is 15 feet. The primary structure is approx. 200 feet from the rear property line. Throughout the property there is significant tree growth with over 20 trees at least 50 feet in height. 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 to increase the building maximum height an addition three (3) feet and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • A mature tree growth decreases the visibility of the primary building • Existing grade changes on the property cause more of the garden/basement level to be exposed • The lot is 6 times the minimum lot size in the R-L zone district • The primary structure exceeds all the minimum setbacks in the R-L zone district Therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant and the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the 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 ZBA190011 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: Fwd: 2120 W Prospect Rd Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:30:27 PM Begin forwarded message: From: Quincy Crane <qcrane@afmfc.com> Date: April 10, 2019 at 2:26:28 PM MDT To: "nbeals@fcgov.com" <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: 2120 W Prospect Rd Dear Mr Beals – Thank you for your notice of the zoning hearing for the property at 2120 W Prospect Rd. I feel that the board will likely approve this request due to the size of the lot and orientation of the home. I prefer to see a lower profile home but the recently constructed library on the property likely exceeds the building height of the home so it seems a moot point. My concern is that there are already a half dozen structures on the property and now planning another build? How many structures does a small family need on their property? Most of these structures are unfinished or partially finished. There are also piles of debris all over the property, dead trees and waist-high weeds on his property. I would like to see Mr. Thomas put more effort into finishing and maintaining his current projects and property before he takes on yet another building project. Thank you for your consideration, Quincy Crane This communication may contain confidential Protected Health Information. This information including any attachment is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party unless required to do so by law or regulation and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by federal law. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this transmission. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 131 S. Sherwood Street Owner: Sharon Getz Petitioner: Jeff Gaines Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4), 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: Variance for an additional 4feet in height addition and associated eave projection to match the existing encroach of 2.5 feet into the required 15-foot corner-side setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U In March of this year the applicant requested two variances for an attached garage. These variances were for increase to the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot and an encroachment into the rear-yard setback. Both were approved. This variance request is to increase the wall height on the second story of the primary building. The variance is required because the existing wall encroaches into the required 15 feet front yard setback by 2.5 feet. The addition would increase the existing deviation in height. 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 variance request and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The existing structure encroaches into setback at both the first and second story • The additional height does not exceed the allowable building in the N-C-M zone district • The additional height does not exceed the height of tallest point of the existing building Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190012 1 Explanation of Variance Request for 131 South Sherwood Street This variance request seeks the following modifications to Fort Collins NCM district standards: • A decrease in lot side-corner setback where wall height is proposed to be raised at an existing gable to create added second floor space. The minimum side-corner setback in the NCM district is 15’ per standard 4.8(E)(4) of the Land Use Code. The existing gable and proposed raised section of wall are 2’-6” over the setback, creating a 12’-6” setback. This existing gable is 15’-6” wide, and the height increase, comparing top of roof, would be 3’-2”. Measured from grade to top of roof, the existing gable is 10’-10” at the eaves and 19’-11-1/2” at the ridge, and this is proposed to be raised to 14’ and 23’-1-1/2” respectively. • An associated increase in eave projection into this setback. The maximum eave projection into a setback is 2’-6” per standard 3.8.19(A)(6). The existing and proposed eave overhang on this gable is 8”, creating an effective projection of the eave of 3’-2” into the setback. 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: While the upstairs bathroom that is to be created by this addition is a small space, this is a compact house with half-story upstairs, and the area over the living room in the south-facing side gable is the only area where the space can functionally be added. The placement of the existing house slightly over the setback line creates a hardship for the addition of this small but important upstairs space. Justification Criteria 2 – The proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a proposal that complies with the standard: Given the space existing between the house and the sidewalk and street, the proposed addition would not surpass the relationship to the public right of way that the 15’ setback requirement ensures is present. The existing and proposed construction of the gable are set back 16’-6” from the inside edge of sidewalk, and 31’-10” from Oak Street. In addition, the existing and proposed eave overhang at this gable is only 8”. The Land Use Code generally allows 2’-6” of overhang, meaning that the rake of the roof would extend only 8” beyond a roof that could be constructed off a similar gable set within the setback. 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 the NCM and NCL districts, it is common for original houses to be located within the side-corner setback of corner lots. Examples of this are too numerous to cite, and the 2’-6” intrusion of a 15’-6” wide section of this house into this setback is a relatively minor one. More importantly, this existing setback is consistent with setbacks along this section of the north side of Oak Street. The proposed increase in massing at the second floor of the house does not radically change its presence in relationship to the setback. Eaves are kept at a low height with 3’-5” exterior knee walls. Side walls in the new bathroom would be just 6’-4”, and the overall roof and eave geometry would tie in with what is already there on the east-west gable of the house.                                                        ! "                  &'( "    #  $%     &'(              , )," ,           &$ $'    &$ $'              -. !"     (    ,          *                   &'(      !$%,"$%,  ($, * %$&, " #          (            *  $ , &'( &'(     '    "      '    " &'( /      "            /      "           &'( Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 601 E. Elizabeth Street Owner: Joseph & Kate Hannah Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4); 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: This is a request for the 2nd story dormer to encroach 8.33 feet into the required 15 feet rear yard setback and 8 inches into the required 15 feet street-side setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was platted as part of the Crafts Resub in 1890. It was annexed into the City with the Lake Park Addition annexation prior to the being platted. The primary structure was built in approximately 1940. The number of alterations that have occurred from the original construction is uncertain. The property is a corner lot. The front door faces E Elizabeth Street and the property addresses from Elizabeth street. The abutting property to the south has a required 5 feet side-yard setback while the subject property is required a 15 feet rear-yard setback from the same property line. The proposed addition is to increase the width of an existing dormer. The additional width in the front setback is an encroachment of 8 inches. While the additional width in the rear-yard setback is an encroachment of 8.33 feet. The existing dormer is on the second story. The first story of the existing building encroaches further than the proposed increase of the second story dormer. 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 8 inches encroachment into the corner side-yard setback and of the 8.33 feet encroachment into the rear-yard setback and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The existing structure encroaches into setback at both the first and second story • The existing first story encroaches more than the proposed dormer • The additional width in dormer is not an increase in floor area • The south abutting property only has a required 5 feet setback from the shared property line Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 2 when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190013 715 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 March 12, 2019 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Variance Request for 601 E. Elizabeth Street To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of my clients, JJ and Kate Hannah, I am requesting variances to Sections 4.7(E)(3) and 4.7(E)(4) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, which states that the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet and the minimum side yard setback shall be fifteen feet on the street side of any corner lot. Earlier this winter, a large tree fell onto the roof of the Hannah’s existing second floor master suite. Fortunately, no one was injured, although there was substantial damage to the roof structure. Since they will need to reframe and patch a large section of the roof (the existing ridge beam was damaged), they would like to replace the existing gable dormer on the west side of their home with a larger shed dormer to match the one they added at the front (north) elevation a few of years ago, in order to provide additional headroom within their existing master bathroom and closet. The existing house is currently sitting within both the southern 15’ rear yard and western 15’ street side yard setbacks, therefore I am requesting a variance to encroach 8’-4” into the required 15’ rear yard setback and 8” into the required 15’ street side setback in order to increase the wall height of the existing second floor walls to construct the proposed shed dormer. I believe that the siting of the existing home within both the 15’ rear and side yard setbacks creates a unique hardship. There is an existing non-conforming condition where the existing gable dormer and nearly 2/3 of the existing south addition are currently located within the setbacks, making it impossible to modify the existing dormer without a variance. I also believe enlarging the existing west dormer would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood for many reasons. First of all, the lot is a corner lot, whereby the rear property line acts as the side property line for the neighbors to the south, which only requires a setback of five (5) feet. I am proposing a setback of 6’-8” to the new dormer south wall. Secondly, the existing second floor area will remain the same, and I am only proposing to increase the height of walls on the west side of the existing ridge in order to provide additional headroom. The proposed dormer roof would not exceed the height of the existing ridge. Additionally, the neighboring home to the south (which would be most affected by the variance) has a driveway on the north side of their property to access their garage (which is setback from the front of their home), and there is a distance of over 20’ between the two houses. Lastly, the proposed dormer would not negatively affect anyone with respect to solar access, since the home sits on a corner lot with Elizabeth Street to the north and Smith Street to the west. City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals March 12, 2019 Page 2 Thank—you for your consideration. Sincerely, Heidi Shuff Studio S Architecture, LLC Phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 83 83 5($5<$5' 6(7%$&. 6,'( <$5' 6(7%$&. 675((76,'( 6(7%$&. )5217<$5' 6(7%$&. (;,67,1* +286( (;,67,1* *$5$*( ((/,=$%(7+675((7             60,7+675((7                                 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (;,67,1*&21',7,216 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR  #žÁ 5%#.'  ':+56+0)5+6'2.#0 83 ',1,1*5220 )5217325&+ .,7&+(1 %$&.325&+ )$0,/<5220 0$67(5 %('5220 0$67(5 %$7+ 0$67(5 &/26(7 %$7+ +$// &/2 &/2 &/2 +$7&+,1',&$7(6 352326('$5($2) 5(02'(/ ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (;,67,1*&21',7,216 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR  # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)(+456(.1142.#0 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)5'%10&(.1142.#0 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP (;,67,1*&21',7,216 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR # 5%#.' žÁ   ':+56+0)0146*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)9'56'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)5176*'.'8#6+10 83 83 5($5<$5' 6(7%$&. 6,'( <$5' 6(7%$&. 675((76,'( 6(7%$&. )5217<$5' 6(7%$&. (;,67,1* +286( (;,67,1* *$5$*( ((/,=$%(7+675((7             60,7+675((7                               352326(' 1(: '250(5 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR  #žÁ 5%#.'  241215'&5+6'2.#0 83  $                   5($5<$5'6(7%$&.  675((76,'(6(7%$&. 5(02'(/('0$67(5 %$7+ &/26(7 0$67(5 %('5220 +$// &/2 %$7+ &/2 +$7&+,1',&$7(6$5($ 2)352326(''250(5 $%29(  $      352326(' 6+(''250(5 ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR  # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5'%10&(.1142.#0 # 5%#.' žÁ  411(2.#0     0$;:$//+(,*+7$76,'(<$5'6(7%$&.       +$7&+,1',&$7(6$5($2)352326(' '250(5(;&((',1*$//2:$%/(:$// +(,*+7)25 6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR  # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&0146*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&9'56'.'8#6+10 #' 5%#.  0146*9'56ÁÁÁÁ&9'56 &8+'9 $6680('3523(57</,1(  675((76,'(6(7%$&. (;,67,1*),(/'9(5,)<    0$;:$//+(,*+7$76,'(<$5'6(7%$&.   +$7&+,1',&$7(6$5($2) 352326(''250(5(;&((',1* $//2:$%/(:$//+(,*+7)25  6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. ZHVWPRXWDLQDYHQXH IRUWFROOLQVFRORUDGR SKRQH HPDLOKHLGLVKXII#JPDLOFRP 6&+(0$7,&'(6,*1 +$11$+5(6,'(1&( ((/,=$%(7+675((7 )RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR  # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&'#56'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5176*'.'8#6+10 #' 5%#.  5176*9'565176*9'56ÁÁÁÁ&&8+'9 From: Wagner,Ann <Ann.Wagner@ColoState.EDU> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:12 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Comments on Appeal ZBA190013 - Joseph & Kate Hannah, 601 E. Elizabeth Street My husband and I (A. Simon and Ann W. Turner) received the Notice of Public Hearing regarding appeal ZBA190013. We live 2 houses south of the Hannahs' home. We are unable to attend the hearing, but we have no objection to approving the variance requested by the Hannahs. Ann W. Turner 604 Garfield Street, Fort Collins 80524 aewagner@colostate.edu From: Mindee Metz <mindee.metz@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:15 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: Derek Metz <derek.metz@gmail.com> Subject: Support for Appeal ZBA190013 Hi Noah, Thank you for the notice of public hearing about the appeal at 601 E. Elizabeth Street. My husband Derek, copied, and I support fully our neighbors' request for 2nd story dormer encroachment. We believe the functional and visual enhancements to the property outweigh the minimum intrusion on the rear-yard and street-side setbacks. We are unable to attend the April 11 but please allow this email to serve as our full input. Best, Mindee Metz 530 E. Elizabeth Street Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2708 Nottingham Square Owner: Stephen & Peggy Hollingshead Petitioner: Allen Curtis Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b) Variance Request: This is a request for a deck to encroach 6 feet into the 20-foot front yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U This property was part of the Village Square annex in 1972. It was later platted in 1979 as part of the Square at Kensington South subdivision. The primary building was built in approximately 1983. It is uncertain the number of alterations that have occurred since original construction. The primary building meets the 20 feet required front-yard setback. At the time of construction the existing stoop was permitted to encroach at into the setback based on its elevation size and lack of covering. Current standards require a structure that needs a building permit to meet the setbacks regardless of elevation, size or covering. 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 6 feet encroachment to expand the deck in width and finds: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The existing stoop encroaches into setback 6 feet • The proposed deck is open on three sides • The proposed deck does not include a covering Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190014 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 11, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1250 E. Magnolia Street Owner: Walmart Real Estate Business Petitioner: Cathy Yockey Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table B Variance Request: This is a request for an 8 feet high wall sign where 7 feet is the maximum height permitted. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is a part of the Mulberry and Lemay Crossing Development Plan that was approved in 2000. This building was later constructed in 2001. A sign permit was issued in 2010 for an 8 feet tall sign reading “Walmart”. It appears this was issued in error as the sign standards at the time only allowed for a 7 feet tall sign. Additionally, staff cannot find a record of a variance being requested and approved. The request is to replace the existing 8 feet tall sign with a new 8 feet tall sign. A sign permit was issued in error the typical time to correct an error is at the time of replacement of the sign with a new sign Additionally, a legal nonconforming sign is required to be brought into compliance at the time of sign replacement with a new sign 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 denial of a 1-foot increase in sign height and finds: • This location is a commercial node with other retailers meeting the sign height requirements and a 1-foot increase for one retailer is not nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA190015         ' (! &!'  )  )  )                           ( *+        &**(   $   $      -   .            &'(         ' (! &!'  )  )  )                            *+        &**( )  !   $            ' (! &!'  )  )  )                           ! *+        &**( " $   " $                   ,  '$*', ($*', &$, $,           &'(         ' (! &!'  )  )  )                           % *+        &**(              $              ' (! &!'  )  )  )                           *+        &**(   ! (     ! (     ! ( $    ! (          ' (! &!'  )  )  )                           & *+        &**(   #          ' (! &!'  )  )  )                            *+        &**(             ' (! &!'  )  )  )                           ' *+        &**(   ! #          ' (! &!'  )  )  )                            *+        &**(   !             #$      #$                   !%            &'(         ' (! &!'  )  )  )                            *+        &**(