Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/14/2020 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Zba May Hearing AgendaRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting will be held virtually The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING MAY 14, 2020 8:30 AM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Participation for this remote Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Zoning Board of Appeals via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/92682471503. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:15 a.m. on May 14, 2020. Participants should try to sign in prior to 8:30 a.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. The number to dial is +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128, with webinar ID: 926 8247 1503. (Continued on next page) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 12, 2020 • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200011 Address: 2140 W. Elizabeth St. Owner: A and V LLC Petitioner: Mark Bruder with Schlosser Signs, Inc. Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (B) Table B Project Description: This request is to increase the height of 4 wall signs. Two of the proposed wall signs would be an additional 7 inches in height, the maximum height is 1.5 feet. The other two wall signs would be an additional 1.85 feet in height, the maximum height is 1.5 feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA200012 Address: 137 Lyons St. Owner: Ellingson/Reed Revocable Trust Petitioner: Aaron R. Ellingson Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(2) Project Description: This is a request for a covered front porch to encroach 7 feet into the required 15 foot front setback. 3. APPEAL ZBA200014 Address: 162 S. College Ave. Owner: 110 East Oak, LLC Petitioner: Michele Pullaro Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(D) Project Description: This is a request to place a secondary fin sign an additional 4 feet away from and to the side of the entrance, the maximum allowed distance away is 3 feet above the entrance. The meeting will be available beginning at 8:15 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 8:30 a.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, the Staff Liaison needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 March 12, 2020 4. APPEAL ZBA200015 Address: 300 S. Whitcomb St. Owner: Thomas & Susan Viney Petitioner: Jeffrey J. Schneider Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.8(E)(3); 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for a 240 square foot detached accessory structure to encroach 12 feet into the 15 foot rear setback and 2 feet into the 5 foot side setback. 5. APPEAL ZBA200016 Address: 1205 W. Mountain Ave. Owner: Edward & Michele Smithwick Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3);4.7(D)(5); 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This request is for variances to build two accessory buildings. One accessory building with habitable space that exceeds the allowable floor area by 72sf, the maximum is 600sf, and it encroaches 10 feet into the rear-yard setback. The second accessory building exceeds the allowable floor area in the rear half of the property by 117sf and encroaches 10 feet into the rear-yard setback. 6. APPEAL ZBA200017 Address: 2510 Falcon Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Brandy Hodgson Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(c&d) Project Description: This is a request for two accessory structures to encroach into the side and rear yard setbacks. Accessory structure number one is requesting to encroach 3 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback and to encroach 7 feet into the required 20 foot side yard setback. Accessory structure number two is requesting to encroach 19 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Boards and Commission Remote Hearing Item Request Form Submission of this form initiates review to determine if items ready for hearing are also considered “pressing and require prompt consideration” and that it would not be prudent to hear such items at an in-person meeting pursuant to City Council Ordinance 061, 2020. Process: 1. Complete this form and review it with your Board Chair 2. With staff and Board Chair recommendations submit this form to the City Manager's delegated Service Area Director (SAD). 3. Approval flow: • SAD with advising City Attorney will make final determination if an item is "pressing and requires prompt consideration" • If approved the item may schedule on the next available Board or Commissions remote hearing agenda Board or Commission: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson: Ralph Shields Date of Requested Hearing: May 14P th P, 2020 Staff Liaison: Noah Beals Agenda Item: ZBA200014 Description: This is a request to place a secondary fin sign an additional 4ft away from and to the side of the entrance, the maximum allowed distance away is 3ft above the entrance. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. Applicant Justification: The Applicant has consented to a Remote Quasi-Judicial Hearing Pursuant to Section 4.D. of Ordinance 61, 2020, and further consents to the use of the Remote Technology proposed for this Hearing. The Applicant has been instructed that all documents should be submitted three business days before the Hearing/Meeting. The reasons why we consider our request to be "pressing and require prompt consideration" are as follows: • Initially, we were to be included on the April agenda but since these unforeseen measures have affected all of us, we are already pushed back a month from the time we had hoped you would consider our case. • Peacock's Perch is a small start-up business in downtown Fort Collins. The doors opened in late fall. While some customers became acquainted with the store during the Christmas season, the predictably lean post-holiday sales have given way to a critical need to take full advantage of downtown shoppers as soon as summer arrives. • Since closing her doors on March 17P th P in compliance with governmental mandates, owner Michele Pullaro has attempted to promote online curbside sales. However, given the nature of the business and the merchandise being offered, this has not borne fruit. • Peacock's Perch will be cautiously re-opening on May 1st, adhering to county guidelines. • The next Board of Appeals meeting after this one won't be until June 11th. Given the possibility that the board grants our appeal for a variance, it will still be at least 2-3 weeks before the sign can be fabricated and installed. This pushes it into early July - midway into the summer shopping season on which the store's viability is dependent. • The impetus of our appeal for a variance relates to increasing visual exposure for foot traffic on College Avenue. Our hope is to be proactively prepared as shut- down guidelines are carefully revised and as pedestrians are eager for a new shopping experience. Of course, we understand that there are other pressing measures before the board and will defer to your wisdom in deciding which cases to entertain. We believe our case is fairly straightforward, will require a minimal amount of deliberation by the board, and will benefit Peacock's Perch as the summer season rapidly approaches. Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval If recommendation is denial, please include additional information: SAD Decision In Consultation With the City Attorney: Remote hearing approved on 04/29/2020 by Caryn Champine, PDT Director, on the basis that holding an in-person hearing on this matter would not be prudent doe to the Declared Local Emergency and that the matter is pressing and requires prompt action. Agenda Item: ZBA200016 Description: This request is for variances to build two accessory buildings. One accessory building with habitable space exceeds the allowable floor area by 72sf, the maximum is 600sf, and it encroaches 10' into the rear-yard setback. The second accessory building exceeds the allowable floor area in the rear half of the property by 117sf and encroaches 10' into the rear-yard setback. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. Applicant Justification: In response to your request for additional information regarding the variance request at 1205 W. Mountain Avenue: My clients, Michele & Edward Smithwick, have been planning to construct a new two car garage with loft space above to get their vehicles off the street and protected from the weather as well as provide additional space in the loft for guests (primarily for Michele's mother to stay for extended periods of time), and to function as a remote work area for Edward when not in use as a guest space. With the current pandemic, the need for additional (and more isolated) space has increased greatly, as Michele & Edward's three college-age daughters are all living with them, resulting in five adults working and schooling from their home. Edward's business requires frequent late night and early morning meetings, which now have to take place in Edward & Michele's bedroom since their daughters are living at home. Should the need for isolation continue into the coming school year, the loft space would offer the additional work space necessary for their family to accommodate the need for sound isolation for video calls and working/ schooling remotely together in addition to providing the opportunity for Michele's mother to stay with them for an extended period of time. For these reasons, we ask that this variance request be heard at the May 14th ZBA meeting so that the design & construction process can proceed, allowing this space to be constructed and available for use as soon as possible. Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval If recommendation is denial, please include additional information: SAD Decision: Approved by Caryn Champine PDT Director 04/29/2020 Application: ZBA200017 Description: This is a request for two accessory structures to encroach into the side and rear yard setbacks. Accessory structure number one is requesting to encroach 3' into the required 25' rear yard setback and to encroach 7' into the required 20' side yard setback. Accessory structure number two is requesting to encroach 19' into the required 25' rear yard setback. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. Applicant Justification: In regards to our zoning appeal, we do consider our situation to be pressing and request prompt consideration. We were hoping to start our construction project in March, and sadly missed the deadline to apply for a variation by only a few days that month. The timeline of the procedures has already caused us to delay our ability to move forward in our construction for an unexpected two months. Additionally, due to the COVID-19 epidemic we have both had jobs cancelled/ postponed, and a timely decision process will allow us to move forward with our own project as soon as possible utilizing this unexpected downtime in employment. This also would enable us to return to paid work as soon as possible after the epidemic passes and thus will alleviate some of the schedule conflict that postponing it further will cause when we return to our regular employment (hopefully soon!) We have invested many hours in providing a clear rationale with thorough documentation and believe this should be a straightforward and quick decision that could easily made through a remote meeting and, again, really feel our building timeline is pressing and deserves a prompt consideration. We are eager to have the opportunity to gain this variance so we can proceed in our construction and utilize our accessory buildings as soon as possible. Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval If recommendation is denial, please include additional information: SAD Decision: Approved by Caryn Champine PDT Director 04/29/2020 Agenda Item: ZBA200015 Description: This is a request for a 240 square foot detached accessory structure to encroach 12' into the 15' rear setback and 2' into the 5' side setback. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. Applicant Justification: I understand they want to spend their time on only pressing matters. I totally respect that. I am just struggling to understand what's "pressing" that they can't decide inside of 5 minutes but I guess I don't know how difficult they make things with each other :) I can't imagine my garage property line variance would take longer than a few minutes of their time?? Oh well. But still, here are MY reasons. Not sure if these would matter to them as everyone's reasons are just important to themselves. My reasons include personal safety, safety of my vehicle & possessions. As a single female I do not feel comfortable parking my vehicle on the street. I often have late work hours and I want the comfort and security of being able to park in a safe location and go straight into the house from the garage. Being able to add a garage was a big part of moving back to Ft Collins and creating a quality space for myself and my son. So while my garage might not be as urgent as other people's needs, it's important to me for settling back into the community. Naturally the aesthetic benefits of having a garage instead of a pile of rubble and my trailer are important to me. I take a lot of pride in my properties wherever I live and think this is important to the broader community as well. Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval If recommendation is denial, please include additional information: SAD Decision: Approved by Caryn Champine PDT Director 04/29/2020 Agenda Item: ZBA200011 Description: This request is to increase the height of 4 wall signs. Two of the proposed wall signs would be an additional 7" in height the maximum height is 1.5'. The other two wall signs would be an additional 1.85' in height, the maximum height is 1.5'. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. Applicant Justification: Our items for review are pressing as they would hold up the opening of the new store which would cost our client large sums of money in leases payments and constructions loans for a non-functioning building (more than the cost of the signage package!). They cannot open without signage and in this particular location, due to the buildings set-back and the dense canopy of trees, the signage is a critical part of the business plan. Without a decision on the signage as soon as possible, the opening of the business could be put off for several months. Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval If recommendation is denial, please include additional information: SAD Decision: Approved by Caryn Champine PDT Director 04/29/2020 Agenda Item: ZBA200012 Description: This is a request for a covered front porch to encroach 7' into the required 15' front setback. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. Applicant Justification: My project was urgent when I submitted my application. My home desperately needs a roof replacement (as clearly visible in your aerial photography which shows missing shingles). The porch addition I am proposing is a continuation of the existing roof and must be completed prior in order to be able to sheath everything together. Delaying my project will delay my roof replacement which is absolutely urgent at this point. Please minimize the severe disruption the current restrictions are causing to local lives and livelihoods by keeping this process going. Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval If recommendation is denial, please include additional information: SAD Decision: Approved by Caryn Champine PDT Director 04/29/2020 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2140 W. Elizabeth St. Owner: A and V LLC Petitioner: Mark Bruder with Schlosser Signs, Inc. Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2 (B) Table B This request is to increase the height of 4 wall signs. Two of the proposed wall signs would be an additional 7 inches in height, the maximum height is 1.5 feet. The other two wall signs would be an additional 1.85 feet in height, the maximum height is 1.5 feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is located in the Residential Sign district. Within the residential sign district there are three sub categories that allow for three different wall sign heights. The following are the separate categories: • Neighborhood Service Center, allows 2.5ft height • Convenience Shopping Center, allows 2ft height • All other non-residential uses, allows 1.5ft height The neighborhood service center requires a grocery anchor and a mix of uses that are developed in relationship to each other. The convenience shopping center does not require a grocery anchor but must be at most 7 acres in size with a mix of uses that are developed and managed together. All other non- residential uses are developed independent and function without other uses. The non-residential uses to the east and north of the proposed Dutch Bros. location total 3.25 acres approximately and have connecting drives. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The property is connected to the other commercial uses to the east and north and total 3.25 acres in size. • A neighborhood service center exists across the street to the south, which allows 2.5ft signs. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200011. February 25, 2020 FOCO Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 To whom it may concern: The goal of this variance letter and attached documents is to express the hardships placed on Dutch Bros Coffee due to pre-existing conditions of their property and zoning. The requested changes are nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Dutch Bros Coffee is opening a new location in the area and has been working tirelessly to make a name for itself. The property and building they have purchased will allow for a quick, accessible drive thru experience as well as comfortable indoor and outdoor seating areas. #1) Unfortunately, due to a large number of trees located in and around their store front, visibility of their proposed signage is tremendously lacking. Coupled with the landscape issues above, the current code’s 18” height restriction would reduce the Dutch Bros sign to 4’-9” wide. Similar to King Soopers signage, the Dutch Bros logo is stacked with the channel letters placed above their signature tri-color coffee “bullet.” #2) Due to this design the height restriction would cause the visibility, legibility and efficacy of the sign to be reduced tremendously. The overall height that we would request for a variance is 25” allowing the sign to be 8’ wide and legible from the street. In an attempt to keep the signs to scale per the Dutch Bros branding, we would also request that the windmill logo be allowed a 40.25” height. #3) This adjustment would not be detrimental to the public good or place any undo hardships or visual anomalies to the neighborhood. Allowing for a 25” overall height of the channel letters and 40.25” height of the windmill logo will not stray from the Land Use Code other than in a nominal way. Yet the increased size will address the landscape and visibility hardships Dutch Bros is facing in this new location. If viewing the letter height and tri-color coffee “bullet” separately, their heights are well within the allowance of the code at 15” and 13.5” high respectively. Thank you for your consideration. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 137 Lyons St. Owner: Ellingson/Reed Revocable Trust Petitioner: Aaron R. Ellingson Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(2) Variance Request: This is a request for a covered front porch to encroach 7 feet into the required 15 foot front setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was originally platted and annexed into the City in 1910. The original structure was built in 1922. The entrance to the primary building is several feet above grade level and requires five stairs. Currently a front exists that encroaches into the front setback at least 6ft. This porch is at the same level as the front door and sits higher than the public sidewalk. The proposed request increases the encroachment to pour sufficient foundation for the new covering and eaves. The design of the covering is open on the three sides and does extend past the existing stairs. The front property line is not the back of the public sidewalk. This sidewalk is an additional 5ft from the property line. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The covering is only 1ft increase from the existing front porch. • The front property is setback 5ft from the public sidewalk. • The porch is open on 3 three sides. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200012. Zoning Variance Guidelines The Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning, Development & Transportation (PDT) Director have been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of the Land Use Code Articles 3 and 4. 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 or 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. EACH VARIANCE REQUEST WILL BE ADDRESSED IN ONE OF TWO WAYS: 1. The PDT Director may review variance requests that meet the following criteria: a. A setback encroachment of up to 10% b. A fence height increase of up to 1 foot. c. In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot increase of up to 10%, provided the increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire lot. d. A building height increase of up to 1 foot. 2. The Zoning Board of Appeals will hear all other variances that do not fall within the above criteria. • Hearing Deadline: The normal deadline for applying for a variance is no later than 3:00 p.m., the second Tuesday of the month prior to the month of the meeting. However, two or three times per year the deadline for applying may differ, so it is a good idea to check with the Zoning Department to confirm the date. • Hearing Location: The Zoning Board of Appeals meets on the second Thursday of each month beginning at 8:30 a.m. at City Hall in the City Council Chambers at 300 LaPorte Avenue. The petitioner or his/her representative must appear at the meeting. 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, the PDT Director may consider a one-time 6-month extension to any approved variance 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. Updated 02.18.20 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The application for a variance must contain the following: A. Application form and filing fee ($25.00) plus $.75 (75 cents) for each address included in section D below. The required information must be submitted to Zoning Staff prior to the application deadline. The applicant must sign the application form for the request to be placed on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. The Zoning Office is located on the first floor at 281 N. College Avenue. B. A digital copy of the application materials must be submitted via flash drive. Please include: 1. Written statement explaining reason for requesting variance 2. Site or plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, showing setbacks. 3. Landscape plan 4. Project or Sign drawings 5. Architectural elevations 6. Other relevant documentation C. Notification letters will be mailed to neighboring owners. Staff will generate the list of names and mailing addresses of all owners of record of adjacent property within 150 feet of all the subject property for most applications. However, the N-C-L and N-C-M zones require a list of names and mailing addresses within 500 feet of the subject property when planned construction of in a 2 story house if the house on the abutting lot is 1 story; or if construction of a new house is greater than 2,500 square feet; or if an addition results is a total square footage of more than 3,000 square feet. Staff will mail notification letters with a description of the variance request to these owners before the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Procedure to appeal the Board’s decision A. Any decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals may be appealed to the City Council, but no new information can be presented. B. Any party who wishes to appeal a Zoning Board of Appeals decision must submit a written protest to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. The submittal form can be found on the City Clerk’s website at www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php WHAT TO EXPECT AT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING • Roll Call • Approval of Minutes from previous meeting • Staff Presentation • Applicant Presentation • Audience Participation: Any interested parties may speak in favor or in opposition of petitioner’s variance request. • Board Discussion: The Board will discuss the variance request, ask additional questions, and reach a decision or table the item. • Vote: The Board will vote to approve, approve with conditions, deny, or table the variance request. Any decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals may be appealed to the City Council. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE ZONING VARIANCE PROCESS, PLEASE CONTACT OR VISIT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING DEPARTMENT AT 281 N. COLLEGE AVENUE; 970-416-2745; OR EMAIL Zoning@fcgov.com Updated 02.18.20 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 __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION ADDENDUM 137 LYONS ST. REASONING: Equal to or better than This proposed front porch cover will promote greatly improve the historic character of this 1922 bungalow. The existing porch deck is an eyesore that is not compatible with the historic architecture of the period. The porch cover will bring the house in line with neighboring homes of this era which, almost without exception, have a covered front porch. I have been working since buying the home in 2005 to renovate in the historic style (including replacing the cement/asbestos siding and restoring the windows). The front porch cover is part of this renovation. See the diagrams for the proposed structure in the historic style. Nominal or inconsequential The proposed porch cover does not significantly increase the footprint of the existing front patio. The existing patio is a substantial 8x24 ft. deck approximately 30 – 34 inches above grade and constructed of brick and concrete. Only an additional 12 inches of setback encroachment is necessary for appropriate footers/piers at the front (see drawings). The existing and proposed eave overhang is 24 inches. This house has had partial porch covers in the past that imposed on the setback to the same degree. In 2005 I removed a fiberglass and steel cover that we found to be aesthetically unsatisfactory. I believe there was a prior cover before that one as well. Nearby homes have existing structure at similar setback to this proposal. 138 Lyons has nearly identical encroachment of the covered front porch. Similarly, 1401 La Porte has a covered side porch at a similar distance from Lyons St. The adjacent alley on one side, and dense hedgerow on the other, reduce the visual contrast with adjacent houses built within the prescribed setback. Hardship The existing uncovered front porch represents a significant hazard in winter months as it easily ices over even with regular shoveling. A porch cover will greatly enhance the safety of the house entrance. Due to the position of the house on the lot, a variance would be needed for any porch covering. I 3+ L YvNS !?X l ST l ;V&- .s I rl=T FL A Al ,s-' I ! i l ' I ···- ~ IS 1 512Te4'.t<. I 1 fiOv\ t:;;1: ( lAICt.., etAve:s) L_, J r 5o't-/"/.0 ( ~ Cr fl', .,p._ A {r~ -1 ___ ..__·•·--•-,-s.-·-~ _.,,,,,-""'' --"'""'"' .,.,-,I, t'}{ l $ r t J\1 Gi '$ I lJ. 2. t./ g x > .cJ 11 { '-, J co~cR cTc / 1Vf ~so,vt2.y pA rto W l T1-f ST I\- i R.S + i~ A l L..l Al bi . I J's!- LYvdS P~oPc?SG't ., tT'c 1s' l i l l ~ ' ' L '(OIJ5 ::,'T" r-· -, f ' l 1 I '~ --,, -· --i f:· "'- - -"- '- _,_; - - - -, f I ~ -~ _-..__ ---= - :.. If'. -\ :-'<1 .\ .. I I . ·, .t--\ o v... s e ({ ,JCL, E Avt.:S}i I i l l ______ _ '),... I I ! 'u .J .J <. -----··-I k., {(.)_f<c) .VEY<l!>Pa'5et. . C I Nl p~o C ~ JV, fj IN& fDRL'rf <' t ~' .eAVE".S) ! i _.,.., ~-~.1 r-- \ '-..._, fS"j..\!;.t .. fAIG.<t '6 1 i<2t.f 1 '-_: ,:;(~) C-<..? /\) '- R /?IF" I tv1 4' c.' Al ~ y f A -r-- 1 ~ v I , rf4. t'~ .s ,I- QA IL IA/& l O ( ~--- - -----·---- J I '.b I ~ ') I \) I l f- \) if\ i=- "CL ' \."' ~ I~ 'j a ~ ~ ~ ,.r, -J "'" <~ ~ rt- ~ i=' :r i <"' -::, ~ Vi/? - ~ ~ ' f c-j ___ 1\ i -~II! , ' L' I ' I L_J-IJ~·J ·., ~-I Ur I j ' 1 ~ U) 'S t-: £) \,) V) (J V) ~ t\_ -0 ~ r) ;_:_.- J II\ \!J ~ rt- ~ N"- '\ <~ L I:_ TRUST AGREEMENT OF THE ELLINGSON·/ REED REVOCABLE TRUST This Agreement is made on March ft-, 2018, by AARON RAY ELLINGSON and JUSTINE REED residents of Larimer County, Colorado (subsequently "Trustees") . called "Settlors"), and (subsequently ARTICLE I - NAME OF TRUST called This trust will be known as the ELLINGSON / REED REVOCABLE TRUST. ARTICLE II - FAMILY STATEMENT ARTICLE III - TRUST ESTATE Settlors assigns, conveys, transfers and delivers to Trustees the real estate property described as: 137 Lyons Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521, with a legal description of: LOT 8, BLOCK 2, VAN SLYKE SETZLER, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL# 9710411008. This property and all benefits of asset payable to Trustees by reason of Settlors' deaths, shall constitute the trust estate. ~_ ,., ...- .. -,· ¥!_ c::· From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 137 Lyons St Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:54:46 PM From: Gregg Smith <smithcustom@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:39 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 137 Lyons St Hi Noah, I live across the street from Aaron. I'm look forward to seeing his porch complete and think it will make a great addition to the neighborhood. Thanks Gregg Smith 949 291 4467 134 Lyons St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 162 S. College Ave. Owner: 110 East Oak, LLC Petitioner: Michele Pullaro Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(D) Variance Request: This is a request to place a secondary fin sign an additional 4 feet away from and to the side of the entrance, the maximum allowed distance away is 3 feet above the entrance. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is in the downtown area on the northeast of Oak street and S College. This retail space has changed tenants throughout time but usually retail/office use. The secondary fin sign is a new sign type that was created in the latest sign code update. This type of sign was considered a projecting sign before the code update. The current regulations allow a sign to be displayed perpendicular from the building face to identify the store entrance. This was a common sign type found throughout the downtown area. In general, the purpose of all sign standards is to reduce sign clutter. The standards of the secondary fin sign are to continue to allow this type of sign to identify the entrance and allow for a larger fin sign to be placed on the building. The context of the existing building has contributed to the proposal. The entrance has a wall sign above and is flanked by windows that extend beyond three feet from the door. There is another tenant space in the same building that has a similar secondary fin 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 approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The existing conditions limit the ability to comply with standards. • A similar sign exists on the other tenant entrance. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200014. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV           Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 300 S. Whitcomb St. Owner: Thomas & Susan Viney Petitioner: Jeffrey J. Schneider Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3); 4.8(E)(4) Variance Request: This is a request for a 240 square foot detached accessory structure to encroach 12 feet into the 15 foot rear setback and 2 feet into the 5 foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was originally platted with the first Fort Collins 1873 Town Map. The original lot was larger and was later subdivided into three properties. Prior to current standards, the subject property was subdivided into 4,750 sf, the current minimum required lot size is 5,000sf. The primary structure was built in 1900. Near the same time the original building was built, a detached accessory building was constructed. This original accessory building was placed on the east and south property without any setback. The proposed structure is approximately in the same location with a 3ft setback from the east and south property line. The original accessory structure had deteriorated in time and was recently demolished. The south abutting property has an accessory building along the shared property line. This structure encroaches into the required 5ft side-yard setback as well and is immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. This abutting structure’s wall that faces the proposed structure is approximately 22ft in length. The east abutting property also has a shed that encroaches into the setback. This encroachment is into a required 5ft side-yard setback. The shed is immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. The shed’s wall that faces the proposed structure is approximately 8ft in length. The shared property on the east is considered a rear lot line for the proposed property. However, for the east neighbor it is a side property line. This results in different setback requirements from the shared property line. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The original accessory structure existed in the same location. • The propose structure is 1-story building and will align with the existing curb-cut. • The abutting properties also have encroaching accessory structures immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. • The east property is considered a side property line for the abutting neighbor. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 2 Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200015. From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA200015 Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:35:59 PM From: dentons301@comcast.net <dentons301@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:29 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA200015 Mr. Beals My name is Carl Denton, and I live at 301 South Whitcomb. Barbara and I also own 306 South Whitcomb. We feel the Vineys do need an accessory building there. To replace the one torn down 2 years ago. Please approve there plans. Carl L. Denton 301 South Whitcomb 970-484-6429 dentons301@comcast.net Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1205 W. Mountain Ave. Owner: Edward & Michele Smithwick Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3);4.7(D)(5); 4.7(D)(3) Variance Request: This request is for variances to build two accessory buildings. One accessory building with habitable space that exceeds the allowable floor area by 72sf, the maximum is 600sf, and it encroaches 10 feet into the rear-yard setback. The second accessory building exceeds the allowable floor area in the rear half of the property by 117sf and encroaches 10 feet into the rear-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is part of the Scott Sherwood subdivision that was platted in 1907. Two of the original platted lots were subdivided to create a parcel that faces onto Mountain Ave and a parcel that faces Scott Ave. The resulting subdivision created two shallow parcels. The original house was constructed in 1923. Some time after the primary building was constructed, a detached accessory structure was built in approximately the same location as the proposed garage. The proposed garage wall that faces the south property line is 28ft in length. The overall height of the proposed structure is 1.5 stories. The proposed shed wall that faces the south property line is 18ft in length. The overall height of the proposed shed is 13ft+, with an eave height of 10ft. The subdivided parcels face different streets. This results in the shared property line having differing setback requirements. The south property line for the subject property is a rear property line, requiring a 15ft setback. For the south abutting neighbor, the property line is a side property line, requiring a 5ft 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 for the proposed garage and finds that: • The variances are not detrimental to the public good. • The existing garage was located in the approximately the same location. • The proposed wall that faces the south property line is one-story in height with a small dormer on the roof. • The abutting property is only required a 5ft setback from the shared property line. • The proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the overall lot. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 2 when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Further Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends UdenialU of the proposed shed and finds that: • The shed location creates additional 18% of wall encroachment along the property line. • The shed location results in a wall within 5ft of the property line for 46% of the total length of the property line. • The additional square footage of the shed is an increase of floor area in the rear-half of the lot. • The shed could be placed in other areas of the lot without requiring a variance. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval for the garage and denial for the shed of APPEAL ZBA200016. =."( =# !T;FE0:!E.! /"-›£lwqrr¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤r klmnlopqrsttmquu! …nw†! Šn‰r ƒ„oqmyz{…xtqr•qpwnxo–u—! Šxonošr›nuwmnpw! žuwnnplwnxo–u—! žuwnnplwnxo–u—r žuwnnplwnxo–u—r ‡qluxonošr ! ûüýþÿ ýþÿýÿÿý ý þüÿ  ## 012 'R  .! BJD880;B1D880;BCDE:, <.…xtq! ' $'  ÿþ ,EEU<)% #.868:88:= ;' ?'( F6E3   ÿþý = F808: ý 6.=| Variance Request- 1205 W. Mountain Avenue Objective: Construct a new 288 SF shed and 672 SF detached garage with loft above at the rear of the property at 1205 W. Mountain Avenue Reasoning: 1. Nominal & inconsequential : • The property is a corner lot, whereby the rear property line acts as the side property line for the neighbors to the south at 107 Scott Avenue, which only requires a setback of five (5) feet. The existing garage (which will be demolished prior to construction of the new garage) is accessed from Scott Avenue and is already located five (5) feet from the rear property line. • The lot is 13,000 SF, which is much larger than the majority of old town lots. The proposed 672 SF garage is only 5.2% of our total lot area, whereas a 600 square foot garage on the largest standard lot of 9,500 SF accounts for 6.3% of the total lot area. • The increase in floor area within the rear half of the lot of 117 SF over the allowed 1,625 SF (for a total of 1,742 SF) is only a 7% increase over the allowable area for the rear half of the lot. • The triangular area of wall/eave that extends above the maximum 10’ eave height along the west side lot line is only 23 SF, and the proposed shed is a small structure with a total height of only 13’-4 ½” (vs. the allowable height of 20’-0”). 2. Hardship: • The property is a double lot (100’ wide and 13,000 SF), but due to the existing front setback off Mountain Avenue of twenty-nine (29) feet (vs. the standard fifteen (15) foot front yard setback), they would be left with only 2’-7” between the house and garage if they were to locate the garage at the required fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback, whereby the garage would block the existing windows on the south side of our house, require a new curb cut off Scott Avenue, require removing the existing back patio for replacement with a new driveway, and result in a fifteen (15) foot wide remote and largely unusable strip of yard south of the garage (as opposed to utilizing the open space between the patio and back yard). • The location of the existing house on the lot (with a 29’ set-back from the front property line and 37’ setback from the west property line) presents a hardship, as 782 SF of the existing home is located within the rear half of the lot. Even with the proposed shed and garage, we’re still well within the total allowable square footage for the lot (2,809 SF proposed vs. 4,150 SF allowed). Variance Request 1205 W. Mountain Avenue April 14, 2020 Page 2 3. Equally to or better than: • Within the NCL zone district, off-street parking areas are to be accessed from the alley or from an existing driveway that has a curb-cut along a public street per Section 4.7(F) (5) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Therefore, they would not be able to build a new garage that would be accessed from Mountain Avenue, since they already have a curb cut off Scott Avenue, even though their west side yard is quite large, with approximately thirty-seven (37) feet from our home to the west property line. Therefore, a new detached garage at the same five (5) feet rear yard setback as the existing detached garage would be the best placement not only for their property, but also within the context of the neighborhood. • Since the west and south property lines both act as side lot lines for the neighboring properties, the proposed orientation of the shed’s gable roof would be equal or better than rotating the gable to meet the maximum eave height along the west side lot line. 715 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 April 14, 2020 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Variance Requests for 1205 W. Mountain Avenue To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of my clients, Edward and Michele Smithwick, I am requesting (4) variances to the Fort Collins Land Use Code in order to construct a new 288 SF shed and 672 SF detached garage with loft above at the rear of their property at 1205 W. Mountain Avenue. The first request is to Section 4.7(E)(3), which states the minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions. The rear property line abuts a neighboring property, requiring a fifteen (15) foot rear setback. They are proposing to build the shed and detached garage with a loft above at a five (5) foot setback from the rear property line, whereby the proposed garage would be accessed from Scott Avenue via the existing curb-cut. The second variance request is to Section 4.7(D)(5), which states an accessory building containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. They are proposing to construct a 672 SF detached accessory building with habitable space, which would allow for a two car garage and interior stair to the loft above. The third variance request is to Section 4.7(D)(3), which states 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 an additional 117 SF over the allowed 1,625 SF in the rear 50% of the lot. The last variance request is to section 4.7(F)(2)(b)(2), which states the exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. They are proposing a 13’-4 ½” eave height (to the tip of the triangular gable roof) at the proposed shed west lot line, for a total of 23 SF of wall/eave above the allowed 10’ eave height. The lot is a double lot (100’ wide and 13,000 SF), but due to the existing front setback off Mountain Avenue of twenty-nine (29) feet (vs. the standard fifteen (15) foot front yard setback), they would be left with only 2’-7” between the house and garage if they were to locate the garage at the required fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback. This would be a very undesirable solution, as that garage placement would block the existing windows on the south side of our house, require a new curb cut off Scott Avenue, require removing the existing back patio for replacement with a new driveway, and they would be left with a fifteen (15) foot wide remote and largely unusable strip of yard south of the garage (as opposed to utilizing the open space between the patio and back yard). City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals April 14, 2020 Page 2 I believe the proposed location of the new garage & shed with a five (5) foot setback from the rear property line 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. The property is a corner lot, whereby the rear property line acts as the side property line for the neighbors to the south at 107 Scott Avenue, which only requires a setback of five (5) feet. Additionally, their existing garage (which will be demolished prior to construction of the new garage) is accessed from Scott Avenue and is already located five (5) feet from the rear property line. They intend to utilize the existing curb cut from Scott Avenue for vehicular access to the new garage. A detached garage at the rear of the property accessed from Scott Avenue with a five (5) foot rear yard setback would also 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. Within the NCL zone district, off-street parking areas are to be accessed from the alley or from an existing driveway that has a curb-cut along a public street per Section 4.7(F) (5) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Therefore, they would not be able to build a new garage that would be accessed from Mountain Avenue, since they already have a curb cut off Scott Avenue, even though their west side yard is quite large, with approximately thirty-seven (37) feet from our home to the west property line. For these reasons, I believe locating the new garage at the same five (5) feet rear yard setback as the existing garage would be the best placement not only for their property, but also within the context of the neighborhood. The increase in square footage for the proposed garage from 600 square feet to 672 square feet will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Their lot is 13,000 SF, which is much larger than the majority of old town lots. The proposed 672 SF garage is only 5.2% of our total lot area, whereas a 600 square foot garage on the largest standard lot of 9,500 SF accounts for 6.3% of the total lot area. Also, the additional area is to the west side of the proposed garage (to enclose the stairs to the loft above), adds only to the length of the structure and not the overall height, since the roof ridge runs east-west. The increase in floor area within the rear half of the lot of 117 SF over the allowed 1,625 SF (for a total of 1,742 SF) will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, as this is only a 7% increase over the allowable area. Additionally, the location of the existing house on the lot (with a 29’ set-back from the front property line and 37’ setback from the west property line) presents a hardship, as 782 SF of the existing home is located within the rear half of the lot. Even with the proposed shed and garage, we’d still be well within the total allowable square footage for the lot (2,809 SF proposed vs. 4,150 SF allowed). Lastly, the increase in eave height of the proposed shed along the west property line will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, as the triangular area of wall/eave that extends above the maximum 10’ eave height is only 23 SF, and the proposed shed is a small structure with a total height of only 13’-4 ½” (vs. the allowable height of 20’-0”). Additionally, City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals April 14, 2020 Page 3 since the west and south property lines both act as side lot lines for the neighboring properties, the proposed orientation of the shed’s gable roof would 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. Aesthetically, the desire is to match the roof pitch of the existing house for the proposed shed, and to run the ridge of the proposed shed in the same direction as the ridge of the proposed adjacent garage such that the double door for access to the shed is at the gable end on the east side of the shed, which allows easy access to the back yard & driveway to the east. Thank—you for your consideration. Sincerely, Heidi Shuff Studio S Architecture, LLC Phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidi@studio-s-arch.com From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: Response to Appeal ZBA200016, 1205 W. Mountain Ave. Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:17:59 PM From: mryan <Mike.Ryan@colostate.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:56 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: Response to Appeal ZBA200016, 1205 W. Mountain Ave. I support the plan as outlined in the appeal and the four variance requests. The new garage is tastefully designed, will not come closer to the neighbors than the current garage, and is designed with the neighbor’s privacy at 107 Scott AV in mind (all except one small window on the 2nd floor face other than south). Thanks, Mike -- Mike Ryan, CSU NREL & RMRS www2.nrel.colostate.edu/ryan-lab/ Mike.Ryan@colostate.edu +1 970-217-5798 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2020 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA200017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2510 Falcon Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Brandy Hodgson Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(c) and (d) Variance Request: This is a request for two accessory structures to encroach into the side and rear yard setbacks. Accessory structure number one is requesting to encroach 3 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback and to encroach 7 feet into the required 20 foot side yard setback. Accessory structure number two is requesting to encroach 19 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was a part of the South Taft Hill Seventh annexation in 2003. A primary structure existed before annexation. In 2011 this primary structure went through a significant remodel with an addition. A public road runs the length of the south property line and then turns north to follow the east property line. Though the road is located within the original property boundaries of the parcel it is considered public right- of-way. This road has not been improved with asphalt and remains dirt. It provides cross access to the abutting neighborhoods. The following is the definition of Street in the Land Use Code: 32TStreet32T shall mean a public way (whether publicly or privately owned) used or intended to be used for carrying vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and shall include the entire area within the public right-of-way and/or public access easement; provided, however, that with respect to the application of30TU Section 3.8.7U30T (Signs), the term 32Tstreet32T shall only mean a dedicated public right-of-way (other than an alley) used or intended to be used for carrying motorized vehicular traffic. Using this definition, the setback is measured from the street that cuts through the original property boundaries. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The reduced setback is to a street with low traffic and no future plans to be improved. • The applicant owns the land on both sides of the street resulting in an effective setback to the south abutting neighbor. • The west property line abuts a public road that only provides access to three other properties. • There is substantial landscaping along the west and south property line to significantly block the Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 2 proposed structures. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA200017. Attention: Zoning Review Board Subject: 2510 Falcon Drive Accessory Buildings; Permits B2002034 and B2002035 Documentation Included: • Written narrative explaining reason for requesting variance • Site plan demonstrating setbacks from roadway • Documentation of other examples of variances of the setback standards in our neighborhood (including a narrative and overhead examples) • Application Request - Variance from Land Use Code April 13, 2020 Dear Board Members, We are intending to build a detached garage and accessory building (shed) on our property at 2510 Falcon Drive. After many hours (days/ weeks/ months) invested in planning our site (and what we thought was our due diligence on researching the setbacks) we finally put in for our building permit last month, and unfortunately learned we were not approved. We had measured our setbacks from the property line, which gives us a 70 foot setback on our side (substantially greater than the required 20') and a 37 foot setback on the rear (again, greater than the required 25'). We were then told that the setbacks need to be measured from the right of ways that go through our property and not the parcel lines, and are requesting a variance from this aspect of the land use standard. Due to the unique circumstances of our property and neighborhood, we feel we have excellent rationale for a zoning variance which I will delineate below. 1. This variance would not be detrimental to the public good, nor the good of others in our small neighborhood. The structures we intend to build are both fully on our parcel and have no impact on either of the roadways (Falcon Drive and Moore Lane) that bound those sides of our property. The access to other homes will not be affected in the least, and the buildings are still well set off from the roadway. 2. Additionally, we feel we meet all of the three additional justifications: 1. The divergence from zoning which we are requesting is Unominal and inconsequential Uin the context of our neighborhood. We are bounded by unpaved roads that allow our neighbors to access their properties. Our structures would not impact the current roads. Additionally, there is precedence in our neighborhoods of buildings that are set much closer to (if not directly on) the Right of Way. The setbacks which we have proposed are greater than or equal to the precedence in our neighborhood. (See attached document delineating other examples of variances to the zoning standards on our neighbors’ property – both overhead photos and narrative) 2. Our proposal promotes the general purpose of the zoning standard (land use) by allowing an adequate buffer between the roadway and our structures Uequally wellU as the standard. 3. (Primarily) Because of the ‘exceptional physical conditions / situation of our property’ moving our accessory buildings to meet the land use code standard would create a Uphysical difficulty and hardshipU in allowing us to utilize our property. In our original proposal, we attempted to locate the buildings away from our house and closer to the roadway so that we could protect and preserve a natural meadow between them. Locating our building to meet the setbacks from the RoW instead of the Road (as requested) would move them into the middle of this meadow, creating an unusually large ‘alley’ of space behind the new garage and up to the roadway. We do not want to ‘cut off’ our parcel of land in this way – our wish is to maximize the use of our property and preserve our viewshed. We feel that moving these buildings an additional 20 feet into the meadow would constitute an emotional hardship for us. 3. Before submitting for a permit, we spoke with the Engineering Department at the City of Fort Collins to double check that we were leaving enough access to the RoW and inquire about future plans for the neighborhood. We were told that there was no future intention to develop the roadway further to include sidewalks. Therefore, being 3-5 feet off of the right of way would be sufficient. This is the information we based our site plan on. 4. We also feel that our unique circumstances have no impact nor effect on the neighborhood, nor our neighbors, and that the board of appeals process would take up unnecessary time and resources for the city. Our property was annexed from the County around a decade ago and has some ‘quirky’ qualities that we feel qualify us for special consideration rather than a prescribed standard of land use. 5. We are requesting to use the edge of the roadway to determine the start of our setbacks (which is in line with our neighbors’ accessory buildings) rather than the utility right of way. In this spirit, our current building plan would be in compliance with the spirit of the land use code and in line with the standards and use of our neighborhood. We are attaching the site plan demonstrating the setbacks as measured from the roadway. Again, we are requesting your re-consideration for the unique circumstances of our parcel due to our unique property circumstances. We very much appreciate your time and consideration. We welcome any questions and/or a conversation about our proposal. Sincerely, Brandy Hodgson (970-412-2665) and Arthur Judson (970-692-9991) 2510 Falcon Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Appeal: ZBA200017 Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:59:04 AM Attachments: 00_3977100 Moore Lane San CDs (1-22-19)-4.pdf From: Elizabeth Bauer <enbrmtrr@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:10 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal: ZBA200017 Hi Noah Beals: I spoke with you earlier this week about the zoning appeal for variance for the construction of two out buildings at 2510 Falcon Drive. Because I may not be able to attend the hearing at the appropriate time that this appeal is heard, I am sending you an email to comment upon this request for variance to the setback from the right of way. I want to state that I want my neighbors to be able to use their property in the way they want. However, I have some concerns that would best be considered in this stage of the permitting. My comments are: 1) The appeal document shows a number of existing variances in the neighborhood as examples of demonstrating that the variance would not be out of the character of the neighborhood. In fact, these existing variances from the City's current building code need to be considered in the context that much of this construction was done when these properties were under the building code of Larimer County in the days before this area was annexed into the city. Some of the building probably occurred before the property was subdivided into lots. Many of these variances were not variances when the construction was performed. In the case of our own property, we consulted with the involved neighbors before pursuing the variance with this very same appeals process. 2) I have been involved in the attempt to construct a sewer line in Moore Lane. This sewer line is expected to be constructed by the City (possibly this fall) starting at the intersection of Moore Lane and Falcon Road and continuing north along Moore Lane, connecting to an existing manhole on our property, 2901 Moore Lane. I have attached the plans, which shows the underground utilities near this corner. This particular intersection, although it looks like it is just a dirt road, contains the crossing of two water lines (from two different utility companies) in the east side of the utility right of way, not too far from this project. There is a propane tank, not shown on the site plans, recently placed by the property owners that extends into the right of way and within about 10 feet from where one of the water lines is buried. The siting of this propane tank will, in part, determine the placement of the buildings. There is a safety setback of 25 feet from this size of tank (>500 gallons) to the buildings. I would request that the City look at the siting of the tank and the proximity to the water lines before making a final decision on the variance to the setback for the siting of the buildings. Access to underground facilities is difficult in this area due to a very high water table (about 3-4 feet from the surface) and you may want to verify that there is enough space for the servicing of the water mains in relation to this tank. Jim McChesney was the City Utilities engineer who performed the oversight on the sewer main in the right of way on our property and will have an idea of what is required to do underground work in our area. Also, although this is a low traffic area, delivery, trash and recycle trucks weekly use this intersection in which to turn around and the siting of the propane tank should also be considered in light of this - again because the siting of the buildings are dictated by the set back from the tank. 3) Lastly, one of the comments made by the city zoning staff in recommending approval of the project, was that there was landscaping to the west and south of the proposed buildings that would block or soften the view of the buildings from the neighbors. This landscaping has been largely removed, leaving the neighbors to the west with a view of what will be a large propane tank to the west of the proposed outbuildings where there were once large shrubby trees. Can the board consider the requirement of landscaping to mitigate the view of the tank and buildings? These neighbors have existing outdoor living areas that face this view. Thank you for the consideration of my comments, Elizabeth Bauer 2901 Moore Lane Fort Collins, CO 80526 (970) 691-4950 A Westrian Company UTILITY PLANS FOR MOORE LANE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO JANUARY 2019 JR ENGINEERING, LLC ELIZABETH BAUER SITE X:\3970000.all\3977100\Drawings\Sheet Dwgs\3977100CV.dwg, Cover Sheet, 1/23/2019 12:51:23 PM, FC A Westrian Company Know what's X:\3970000.all\3977100\Drawings\Sheet Dwgs\3977100SP.dwg, San P&P, 1/23/2019 12:51:44 PM, FC A Westrian Company X:\3970000.all\3977100\Drawings\Sheet Dwgs\3977100DT.dwg, San Details, 1/23/2019 12:52:54 PM, FC A Westrian Company X:\3970000.all\3977100\Drawings\Sheet Dwgs\3977100DT.dwg, Erosion Details, 1/23/2019 12:53:21 PM, FC From: Noah Beals To: Kacee Scheidenhelm Subject: FW: Appeal: ZBA200017 Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:28:37 AM From: Linda <livotu@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 10:19 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal: ZBA200017 We have no problems with the variance requested for the property owned by Brandy Hodgson and Arthur Judson, it will not impede flow of traffic and they have told use they will be doing some revegetation of the property to replace any trees were taken down All designs will fit in with the surrounding properties Thank you Rick and Linda Vos 2905 Moore Lane  }000;#' # ( þý ~! 0.# &=. ý * '( ?*0.  +   ?# ; ' 880-,¿áǾ͵±×Úµ²³²³ %LA1dde/P VWXYXYZ[' ) ' + ØÎÁÁµ½¼¼½ÈÅÁÃÙ ±²³´µ¶·µ¸¹º»¼½¾»µ¿ÀÁ»ºÁ øãäùðñêëäòæäæõäúïòòïõäòöêé ÞÌß âãäåæçèéêëäêéìäèéíæéîïðñïéòèêë ÏÃнÇõѵ¸¾ÈÅÁÍÁµÄÒ¾¼ÅоÈÓ ×·ÊØÏÙØÖÙÚµ×·ÊØÛÙØ´ÙÚµ×·ÊØÛÙØÖٵѵ׷ÊØËÙزÙØÜÙز٠óãäôêõìîöè÷ ɳ´²±  f         6?.#008608.00<& ;  Aj4.; (800: (8.)E.' ! 00?O  W\% E:#.08:  ]6 Z\0880;E:,P #'  * ]VWXYXYZ[ '>  .g 34567/880?  0F:* 8..%  ' .  W\%:6@# 896347: ^' (_ ( < ]80; ' `?K 8;0.L( .Wa\#  4AhA1d33 ( A  567/8G88088:.W_#  0 +* '>M ;  W[. ;O F8>vqwnwnxoqmyz{nroxwrw‚qrƒ„oqm! vqwnwnxoqmyzr‡qˆlwnxou‚n‰rr wxrw‚qrƒ„oqmrnur ‹ŒŒŽyz{‹ŒŒŽyz{‹ŒŒŽyz{sttnwnxolˆrr ‡q‰mquqowlwnœqyz{Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ( XbXYcW •nšolwžmqr¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ # '> Q# N( E?> zŒ}zŒ}zŒ}'+   ; O 88000.> 6083  3/  & 8G880B330H8DI F80;*  * (Œ¡yz{Œ¡yz{Œ¡yz{.‘’’zzr ‹“Ž{˜~}|f (', *}*  0.~€r % ™r  880:# % ' ‘’’zzr ‹“Ž{˜~}|F80.<}”r  N( 00?~r (  ' 0.™r  *,%=¢r ' ? 8< #'  .9: ghdiJ2 <%HU ¿ÇÈž¼Áȼ Ôʳղֱձ³×³ ʱ´µ¶·µ¸¹º»¼½¾»µ¿ÀÁ·Ë¹Ç¼µÌ¹Í;»Î ÅÁ¾Ã¾ÝμºÃ¾¹ÕÎÕ½ÇÈÅ·È¹Ò ÂÁ¾Ã¾µÄźÆÆ Þà¿  -           #  .( ' . '>S -0F8080 > K > F->3/ #?  % 6<00:  - ..' 96  00;=) .. '   ;# * ( .?-< .(( )?  .' .   0 . '> + ¥¦§¨©ª§«¬­®¯°®­¬ + I  #  =   + (                       !"# $%& ’())*"") $%& ’()+*#"+   ,)- ,. , .-&.%    .&    /       0  1   /2%%  34 5. .65.&   ) &  27   1  , 4  .&5  8 85. .65.&&9        27  & &.& ..%&.   /&          $&   /&/,&& &77 &% %    / &   /, &  .  /       & &,    27   :   %   . &% %    &/& & && %.    .%%.  /&  & .  /.  /&  9   & / . & &/ /&/     &  & . & ,7&  ’&&  7& (% 7 .  .  %% ./ &   .& .   , 7  &%  % .;& / &  &/%.   %% 7 /&9/ 7 .                                                          !"              !      "  #     $                     %    $    " #  "     &     ’               $               " #                  $                !      #$ % &                   !(              )  * #                  "   #$ % &’            $           + ,                                  "                                 #$ %           $  $        #                 -      .              "     -         )  *         $         /           0 #     /    1                     %2  $    "    !2  $    "                 3     &       $                 4 " $ 1 ) 1 ) ) 5 +     *                         !  "  #$ % #&’    (    !  "  #$) & # !  $ #* +,*- ! . - /     ##!0 # /  !  #- ’    !      #&’ # #   #. .   ’  # ! $     0/ ’# # !   .   $ #  ! . ’   1  21  . /3 $ . 4  #     . / ’  .     ’#! $   2 $    1  . 3 .     4 ! #/   ,’   &  51 ! $ ! $/  # . 4 /   $    . !  # # 1 ! ’ . /!  * +,*’ /  . ./   $$    /1   $    $   !!. #  4  #          6  )7 E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRWVHOILPSRVHG   WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG  WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address  Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner  City )RUW&ROOLQV&2 Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is  Zip Code  Petitioner’s Address  Owner’s Name  Petitioner’s Phone #  Code Section(s)  Petitioner’s Email  Zoning District  Additional Representative’s Name  Justification(s)  Representative’s Address  Justification(s)  Representative’s Phone #  Justification(s)  Representative’s Email  Reasoning  Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 162 South College Avenue Michele Pullaro Tenant 80524 2202 Dolan St., Ft. Collins, CO 80528 110 East Oak, LLC 970-430-8762 3.8.7.3 (D) mmpullaro@gmail.com Downtown Dan Seese 3830 Capitol Dr., Ft. Collins, CO 80526 970-226-0618 info@danseesestudios.com As per code, a projecting sign must be within 3 ft of the entrance. The reasoning for this, as explained to me by Noah Beals in planning, is to reduce visual clutter and to mitigate against confusion regarding which business is being identified. The accompanying documentation demonstrates that our proposed sign location functions equal to or better than that purpose and it’s effect will be nominal and inconsequential in context of the neighborhood. March 9, 2020 2. Equal to or better than 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification