Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/09/2020 Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing Zoom Webinar The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JULY 9, 2020 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present except Shuff.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the June 11, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200022 – APPROVED Address: 2921 Moore Lane Owner/Petitioner: Michael & Casey Robinson Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(b) Project Description: This is a request to locate a propane tank 10 feet from the front property line, encroaching 20 feet into the 30 foot required front setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner property, on the corner of Falcon Drive and Moore Lane. The current tank sits on the side of the house, outside the front setback. Proposal is to move it closer to the service road that the property takes access from. There are no plans to connect Moore Lane and Falcon Drive. The request is due to the future build of a garage. There are also plans to put a screened fence around the tank. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 July 9, 2020 Boardmember Lawton asked about improvements in the future (eg connecting Moore Lane) and whether this would affect the variance. Beals replied if approved, the board can condition the variance to expire when Moore Lane connects in the future. Applicant Presentation: Casey Robinson, 2921 Moore Lane, addressed the board. There is also a ditch present on the property. The ditch company has an easement through the property to be able to do maintenance. She has met with the company to make sure they are within their requirements. The company would like a 35 foot easement from the propane tank. There are only 5 houses back in the enclave that would ever use the Moore Lane access. Vice Chair LaMastra asked how long the existing driveway is. Ms. Robinson explained there is no longer a driveway. From the corner of the house to the proposed propane tank is 35 feet. LaMastra asked about positioning the tank east along the driveway. Ms. Robinson explained that would be closer to the house and would include tearing out the landscaping and keep the gate access to the backyard. LaMastra does not see a hardship, appears this is their preference. Michael Robinson, 2921 Moore Lane, addressed the board. He explained that they must maintain a setback from the ditch from an erosion aspect. They must also maintain the structural integrity of the ditch. They have tried to move the propane tank further, but there are so many setbacks this was the best location. It is not too close to the house or tearing out utility lines or shrubbery. Chair Shields clarified that if the propane tank was moved further east, it would conflict with landscaping and be too close to the house. Mr. Robinson agreed, plus the ditch is present, moving the tank further toward the house. Vice Chair LaMastra asked for the setback requirement from the house. Mr. Robinson replied that it’s 10 feet. Proposed placement is 15 feet. Mr Robinson noted that the ditch moves north the farther east it goes. Discussion on location of the ditch. Mrs Robinson noted that she felt this was the best compromise when considering the erosion, building of the driveway and not having an eyesore in the front yard. They will also add a fence for aesthetics. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover noted that this is nominal and inconsequential. Asked whether the proposed tank is in the flood plain. Beals noted that the applicants are required to obtain a building permit, and this gets addressed during permit review. Mr Robinson explained that the only part of the property in the flood plain is the South West corner of the property. Stockover asked whether the tank is being put on a foundation. Mr Robinson said yes, it would be. Lawton noted email from neighbor who is in support. He also sees this as inconsequential, noting again there are no plans by the City to extend Moore Lane. Understands the concerns from the homeowner, will be in support. Vice Chair LaMastra is torn on this item. Doesn’t think there is a hardship. Doesn’t think that 20 feet into a 30 foot setback is nominal and inconsequential. Interested in hearing more discussion. Yatabe stated one of the potential grounds is hardship, but it doesn’t always need to be demonstrated. Boardmember Meyer noted that more precise representation of measurements and locations would be helpful. This isn’t nominal. But he appreciates that the applicant spoke with the City Engineering department about the future of the road and potential of it being built out. Chair Shields agreed that it would have been helpful to see better pictures but thinks it would be nominal/inconsequential. Boardmember Stockover noted that if they ever needed to complete the road, they would bring services (sewer, gas, etc) Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200022 for the following reasons, 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 with the following findings: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 July 9, 2020  The reduced setback is to a street with low traffic and no future plans to be improved.  Current road improvements only allow access to one other property.  A ditch on the south side of the property limits the location of the tank on the property. Yeas: Lawton, Stockover, McCoy, Shields, LaMastra, and Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 2. APPEAL ZBA200023 – APPROVED Address: 1131 LaPorte Ave Owner/Petitioner: Gregg & Mary Perry Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(2) Project Description: This request is for a variance to build a carport attached to an existing accessory building (garage) encroaching 10 feet into the 15 foot required street facing side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that it is a corner property close to the neighborhood conservation district but not in the district. The district does not require a floor area ratio. The setback along the street is 15 feet. Proposal is to remove existing garage and re-build garage and an additional carport within the side setback. The garage would meet the setback. The carport would encroach and will be open on three sides. There is currently foliage to help screen the structure. Boardmember Lawton asked about the current shed and if there are any restrictions. Beals replied if less than 8 feet in height and less than 120 square feet, it does not require a permit. Applicant Presentation: Gregg and Mary Perry, 1131 LaPorte Ave, addressed the board. The change in the structure is this will be 2 story. The carport is to protect their trailer. They will be trying to maintain the aesthetics and match the house. Boardmember Meyer stated on the site plan, proposed garage is 10 feet from the house. He asked how far is the garage from the existing house and why are they shifting it to the east? Ms. Perry replied they would like more space to access the gate. She believes it is currently at 8 feet. They are moving the garage over 3-4 feet from current space and provide more light into the kitchen. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this is a clean design and supports less clutter in a somewhat dense neighborhood. He will be in support as he believes this is nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Lawton agreed they are a benefit to the neighborhood and will be in support. Boardmember McCoy agreed. Vice Chair LaMastra liked the screening and buffering along the property line and will be in support. Boardmember Meyer and Chair Shields agreed with previous comments. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200023 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted not diverge from the standards of the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in context of the neighborhood and will continue to promote the Land Use Code in section 1.2.2 with the following findings:  The carport is open on three sides.  The property line is setback 8 feet from the back of sidewalk.  There is an existing driveway in the approximate location of the carport. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 July 9, 2020 Yeas: Lawton, Stockover McCoy, Shields, LaMastra, and Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA200024 – APPROVED Address: 305 W. Swallow Road Owner: Foothills Assembly of God Petitioner: Matt Everhart Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B)Table B Project Description: This request is for a variance to install a 3 foot tall wall sign logo for Foothills Assembly of God, exceeding the maximum height of dimensional wall signs in the residential sign district by 1.5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a request for a taller sign for the logo portion of the sign than is usually allowed in the residential sign district. To the east is a railroad and the sign will face east and will not be visible to the residential properties to the west. The parking lot is shared for people riding on the Max public transportation. Boardmember Meyer asked about the maximum height in opposite zone district to the East. Beals replied that it was 7 feet. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about whether there is a monument sign present? Beals confirmed same. Boardmember Lawton, noted the sign that is there, appears over 1.5 feet. Beals replied it did go through sign permitting and was approved. Applicant Presentation: Matt Everhart, 6410 S College Ave addressed the board. This is inconsequential as it does not face the residential area, even though it is zoned as residential. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover is familiar with the neighborhood. This is so simple, mainly due to the orientation of the building. There are multiple buffers and he will be in support. Boardmember Lawton stated this is in character for the area, will support. Boardmember McCoy agreed. Vice Chair LaMastra in support, it can hardly be seen. Boardmembers Meyer and Chair Shields agreed with comments. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200024 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code in section 1.2.2 with the following findings:  The sign is not visible from the abutting properties that are Zoned R-L.  The sign faces non-residential properties not in the residential sign district.  The additional height is limited to the logo.  Everything to the West is commercial with the additional buffers of the railroad track, irrigation ditch and bike path Yeas: Lawton, Stockover McCoy, Shields, LaMastra and Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 4. APPEAL ZBA200025 – APPROVED Address: 419 E. Laurel Street Owner/Petitioner: Adam & Lauren Rubin Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 July 9, 2020 Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) & 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for two variances. The first is to build an addition to the existing accessory building to match the existing building's setback of 2 feet 9 inches from the side property line, encroaching 2 feet 3 inches into the required 5 foot side setback. The second is for the eaves to encroach an additional 1 foot into the setback, encroaching a total of 3 feet 9 inches into the setback where permitted encroachment for an eave is 2.5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is to add an addition to an accessory building close to the alley in the back. The extension extends South and matches the existing encroachment. The eaves are allowed to extend into the setback, but still does not extend all of the way to the property line. There would still be room for run-off. Vice Chair LaMastra asked for clarifications on eave distance. Beals confirmed the eave is an additional 9 inches. At the time of the staff report it was unclear where the eaves lied. The eave is counted from the allowed encroachment for an eave. The eave encroachment is an additional 6 inches Boardmember Lawton question on additional buildings in the alley. Are they separate properties or additions? Beals: would need to research this. LaMastra noted they are addressed off of Peterson St.. Applicant Presentation: Adam Rubin, 419 E Laurel St., addressed the board. They are trying to gain more space. They are constrained by utilities in that location. Neighbors are supportive. They are trying to follow all of the codes as best as they can and consider this nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. Chair Shields asked about utility line and pole. Mr. Rubin replied that is cable. All electrical is underground. There is also sewer in the area. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there are going to be gutters on the roof? Mr. Rubin replied that there are no gutters now, but could consider. No drainage issues currently, will do grading in the back. The next step if they are able to move forward is the grading and drainage. There are currently no runoff issues on the property. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover – runoff is always a concern, liked the continuing roofline and footprint. Boardmember Lawton noted this would be an improvement for access/protection from vehicles. Letter from neighbor that states it as an improvement. Boardmember McCoy will be in support. Vice Chair LaMastra less concerned with overall impact when there is an existing structure…in support. Boardmember Meyer – if they add gutters/downspouts, they might be able to improve the drainage and runoff. Suggested allowing enough room to park a car. Boardmember Shields is in support, noted two letters from neighbors in support Vice Chair La Mastra clarified that the vote was for both variances. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200025 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code in section 1.2.2 with the following findings:  The addition will match the setback of the existing garage.  The 18 foot length of the addition is 10% of the 180 foot length of the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 July 9, 2020  The addition does not exceed allowable floor area for the entire lot or in the rear half. Yeas: Lawton, Stockover McCoy, Shields, LaMastra, Meyer. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 5. APPEAL ZBA200027 – TABLED Address: 2301 Limousin Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Derek Smith Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1); 3.8.11(C)(2) Project Description: This request is for a variance to build a 6 foot tall fence between the front of the building and front property line. The maximum height allowed in the front yard is 4 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner property. Originally platted with an address on Hampshire. There was intention that the property would front on to Hampshire, but when it was built, it was built facing Limousin Ct. Applicant in touch with the City’s Engineering department to verify how far away from the corner they need to be. Applicant Presentation: Brittany and Derek Smith, 2301 Limousin Ct., addressed the board. As far as the aesthetics, they did supply the board with pictures of other properties in the neighborhood. The back of their property is 12-13 feet from the fence, trying to provide more usable space with an increase in privacy and security. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if there is a reason to come clear out to the street with the fencing. Can they come off of the garage instead? Mr. Smith replied that this is for enclosure to create a private safe space for children to play. The aesthetics of the house, there is not much added on that side. La Mastra noted the opposing neighbor letter,and wondered if they could come to a middle ground solution that helps give some space but also helps to alleviate the neighbor’s concerns with this variance. Mr. Smith explained he spoke to most neighbors, and he wasn’t aware of opposition. If someone has an issue, he would be more than willing to come up with a middle ground. LaMastra noted it was neighbors across the street on the Hampshire side. Beals read the opposing letter aloud, written by neighbor to the east. Vice Chair LaMastra suggested options of either a 4 foot fence or pulling back to the front of the house. Explained they hear out all neighbors who have strong opposition . Mr Smith replied their house is situated more towards the West and are losing out on backyard space. Thinks neighbor doesn’t like that they have a bigger lot. They did consider a shorter fence but they are trying to maintain the security and privacy. Ms. Smith wanted to clarify the location of the east property, no matter the location, they are adjacent to where the 6 feet fence would end?? Even if they did build the fence from the garage, it would still be blocking the view. Mr. Smith asked if they are upset at not seeing more of the house? He’s confused on their letter. LaMastra noted that they still have a plenty big backyard. It’s difficult to approve something when there is such strong opposition. Mr Smith noted again that there are at least 4 properties with the same look. They are trying to get something approved that already exists in the neighborhood. Mrs Smith noted that it’s difficult to tell from the pictures that the backyard is not very usable. Going out from the garage is just going to feel small. Boardmember Meyer noted that this is a very challenging site. He sees and understands hardship. He questioned whether if we were to follow the strict rule of the code, is there a determination where to transition from 6 foot to 4 foot? Beals – the transition would have to start behind the front of the house. Boardmember Meyer asked applicant to speak to the hardship of transitioning to the 4 foot fence from a privacy perspective. Mr Smith explained that there is not much space. There is a concrete pad which wraps around the Southeast corner. There are a lot of cars that drive down Hampshire and a lot of neighbors that walk by due to the location of the mailbox being in front of the house. Everyone Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 July 9, 2020 would be able to look in. Mrs Smith noted that the location of the door to the yard is in the back. It is hard to see around into the whole yard. Having the 6 foot privacy fence is essential from a safety and security perspective. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this property was developed in the 70’s. It was the applicant’s choice to purchase this property, and therefore this seems self-imposed. However, he has been naïve enough to believe he could do what he wanted on his own property and they probably thought they could build a high fence. A fence 2 feet away from the sidwalk is hard to maintain due to weeds. A 6 foot fence changes the look of the neighborhood aesthetically. Boardmember Lawton – a compromise would be a 4 foot fence. A neighbor across the street on Limousin Ct. has a fence that ends at the garage. There is precedence to do this. The neighbor that submitted the letter is across the street and he sees their point. Thinks it is self-imposed. Chari Shields asked about the location of the mailbox Boardmember McCoy – the rules serve the property. They can still fence out to the street with a 4 foot fence. He is not in support of this variance. Vice Chair LaMastra – has concerns when there are neighbors strongly opposed. There are many neighborhoods in the city with 4 foot fences. Security wise a 4 foot fence should be plenty. There can be landscaping added to screen. The other yards used to compare are backyards, and it is not a valid comparison. Either drop the fence to 4 feet or end it at the garage. Boardmember Meyer – he is on the fence, There is still sufficient room to play in their yard. The purpose of the code is to maintain consistency in the neighborhood. Chair Shields –a decent compromise would be a 4 foot fence. With some creative landscaping, privacy could be achieved. If there was no opposition, he would be in more support. Vice Chair LaMastra stated that they could work with their neighbor on other compromises. They could place the fence differently, or plant vegetation in front of the fence, etc. Mr. Smith added their plan is to include native plants and xeroscaping by the road and border between the fence and property. He doesn’t want to waste time if they will be shut down again. He doesn’t want a property that is not visually appealing. Discussion regarding the board tabling this item so the applicant can speak with the neighbor, get a definitive plan and come to a compromise. Shields added that if they got the support of neighbors and improved the look visually, he could get on board. Boardmember Stockover asked whether an open lattice at the top is part of the height of the fence. Beals confirmed that it was. LaMastra noted that this could be another idea for a compromise. Boardmember Stockover suggested that this item be tabled until next month. Boardmember Meyer appreciates that the applicants want the fence to be attractive. Tabling will give them time to address the neighbor. Wants them to come back with a positive letter from the opposing neighbor once they work out a compromise. Mrs Smith wanted to clarify that it was an option to do a 4 foot fence with a lattice. La Mastra stated that it would be another variance, but it might be more of a compromise with the neighbors. Beal recapped the options – Deny, Approve or Table. Shields asked the applicants if they would like to table. Mr. and Mrs. Smith agreed they would like to Table to give them more time to talk to the neighbors. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to table ZBA200027 to provide time for the applicant to reach out to their neighbors. Yatabe added that they should table with a certain date, then they do not have to re-notice this. Stockover specified this should be tabled until the August hearing. Yeas: Stockover McCoy, Shields, LaMastra and Meyer Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED to the August hearing.