Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/13/2020 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 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 AUGUST 13, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present, except LaMastra and Shields • APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON FOR AUGUST 13, 2020 MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by McCoy to appoint Stockover as the Chairperson for the August Meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Stockover to approve the July 9, 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 ZBA200009 – APPROVED Address: 144 2nd St. Owner/Petitioner: Michael Rossman Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.19(A)(6); 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: The variance request is for an addition to the existing structure. The addition requires the following two variances: 1. A 2 foot encroachment into the required 5 foot side-yard setback 2. A 6 inch encroachment for a required 2.5 foot setback for an eave. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 August 13, 2020 Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that this item had been previously tabled. The item was originally heard in March. Applicant heard feedback and re- designed the project to retain the existing house on site and put an addition instead of rebuilding all together. The existing detached garage does not comply with the side setback. With the rebuild of the garage, they want to encroach into the side setback. The new garage would be attached to the existing house, with an addition. Part of the addition is 2-story, but the part encroaching into the setback is 1-story. Boardmember Lawton asked a question to clarify that the new building would be on the same location as the existing building. Beals confirmed that the existing garage will be torn down and the new building would encroach in the same location but is longer than the existing garage. Boardmember Meyer asked about the eave – if it is the eave along the garage which was encroaching. Beals confirmed this. Boardmember Stockover asked about the property next to the garage and whether the driveway abuts it. Beals did say that a portion of the neighboring house probably did encroach into the setback. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Michael Rossman, 144 2nd St, addressed the board. He noted that they looked at information from the Historical society and feedback from neighbors. He also noted that the neighbor who was previously opposed has given his approval. The existing non-compliant garage was built in 2012, prior to him owning the home. The rear portion of the new construction is in the setback. The only piece is the garage. The smallest 2 car garage that they could fit on the property is 20 feet wide. They are saving much of the original structure, with the character which fits into the neighborhood. He shared some additional slides to give some more information and to show examples of existing houses in the neighborhood which also encroach into the side setback. He then shared an email from John Sargent dated August 2, 2020. Beals read the email, which gives full support of the project. Audience Participation: Jeff Polomo, 613 S Meldrum, addressed the board in support of the variance. He owns a neighboring property. He has seen the design and is in full support of the project. Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton would be in support. The applicant has done a great job and is in the same footprint of what was there before. Boardmember Shuff appreciates the work done, understands the constraint of the 20-foot garage and would be in support. Boardmember McCoy thinks it is well done. Boardmember Meyer pointed out that the new design is more aligned to the land use code and is in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve ZBA200009 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. • Throughout the Buckingham Place neighborhood similar encroachments occur. • The existing garage has a similar encroachment along the south property line. • The encroachment is for a one-story portion of the building. • The email of the most affected neighbor being in support Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Meyer, Stockover, Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 August 13, 2020 2. APPEAL ZBA200027 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION 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 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 that this item was tabled from the July meeting. The property is on the corner of Hampshire Rd and Limousin Ct. The property was originally plotted along Hampshire. The applicant has been working with Engineering to ensure that the fence is placed in the required distance back from the sidewalk. There was a request at the last meeting to provide possible landscaping ideas and the applicant has provided that. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Derek Smith, 2701 Limousin Ct, addressed the board. He is requesting that the design of the fence remain the same. He noted that they made multiple attempts to reach out to the dissenting neighbors but could not get in contact with them. He was unable to get feedback. He noted that the landscaping they are proposing is low maintenance but aesthetically pleasing. There were two neighbors who submitted letters in support of the project. Beals noted that they did read the emails and that they were put in the board’s packet. City Attorney Havelda asked Beals to read the dates of the letters. Letters were from Jennifer Lansford and Brian trout - both on August 6 Mr Smith confirmed that those were the letters he was referring to. Audience Participation: none Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff noted that he was not present at the last meeting and that he is just getting familiar with this item. Boardmember Meyer stated that there appears to be a letter from the neighbor to the East. Beals confirmed that this was the same letter from the previous meeting. Beals also confirmed that with a item that is tabled to specific meeting, such as this item, there is not a requirement to send out new letters to neighbors, however, the results are posted online. Meyer appreciates the effort the applicant made to reach out to the neighbor. He wished that there was some mention of the struggle from the Neighbor. Council Havelda clarified that the applicant’s testimony is the only evidence to the board. Applicant Smith noted that he did receive feedback from another neighbor voicing support, but they did not send a letter for fear of retaliation of neighbor. Boardmember Shuff stated that they should go back and weigh the hardship against the code. Boardmember Stockover asked Council Havelda whether the occupation of the applicant would be considered a hardship, given the current political climate (defund the police). Havelda stated that the occupation of the applicant was not noted as evidence of hardship. Stockover noted that in the previous meeting, it was brought up that there was a concern for safety of his children. Havelda stated that the safety of his children can absolutely be considered, but his occupation does not necessarily need to be taken into consideration. Stockover appreciates the landscaping, as the area between a fence and the sidewalk is very hard to maintain. He is in support of approval but wanted to know if a motion could be made to include the requirement to submit a landscape plan. Beals confirmed that a motion could be made with condition. Applicant Smith stated that he will only be building a 6-foot fence. He noted that experience from his job confirms that a 4-foot fence would not be adequate for safety reasons. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 August 13, 2020 Boardmember McCoy stated that he would be in support Boardmember Lawton noted that the hardship has not changed. He appreciates the attempt to reach out to the dissenting neighbor and indicated that he would be in support. Boardmember Shuff appreciated the follow up from the applicant. He understands the hardship and thinks that this would be nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve with condition ZBA200027 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. • The lot was originally planned to have a front setback on Hampshire Road. • The orientation of the house created a shallow rear-yard and a wider side-yard. • The proposed fence is located in a front side yard and not in front of the house. • Other 6-foot tall fences in the neighborhood run along front yards. A condition was added that the applicant submit a landscape plan and use low maintenance landscaping similar to what was shown in the presentation. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Meyer, Stockover, Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION ** Boardmember Meyer recused himself from the following item** 3. APPEAL ZBA200028 – APPROVED Address: 4610 Player Dr. Owner: Dan and Brianna Brown Petitioner: Jeff Hansen Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This is for a variance to build an 852 square foot addition to the existing 768 square foot garage for a total of 1620 square feet, 420 square feet over the allowed 1200 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located off of Harmony and abuts a church. Zone U-E allows for accessory buildings. The lot was larger in the past, but now is under an acre. This allows for only a 1200 square foot accessory building. An option would be to build an 2nd accessory building, but the request was to minimize the impact and only build one accessory building. There is significant landscaping which limits the view into the property. Boardmember Lawton asked Beals whether the applicant owned the property when the property was reduced to under an Acre. Beals stated that he believed the current owner recently purchased the property but would defer to the applicant for clarification. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jeff Hansen (Petitioner), 419 Canyon Ave, addressed the board. He does not know when the lot size was changed. He is not sure when the owner purchased the property. Google maps shows that there has been a fence along the property since 2014. The work that the City did in the right of way was performed sometime in 2019. Audience Participation: none Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 August 13, 2020 Board Discussion: Boardmembers McCoy and Shuff will be in support. Boardmember Lawton noted that the lot used to be larger and that a favor was done for the city by giving up some of the lot size. He will be in favor. Boardmember Stockover will also be in favor. It is a very minimal change in the context of the neighborhood. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA200026 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. • The addition is in between the existing accessory structure and the south property line. • A parking lot exists along the east property line on the abutting neighbor. • The primary structure is 2-story, and the addition is subordinate in height and size. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Stockover, Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA200029 – APPROVED Address: 320 Willow St Owner/Petitioner: Lance DeBar Zoning District: D Code Section: 4.16(B)(1) Project Description: In October of 2018 the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance request to rebuild a shed in its existing location. The structure was not built before the approval expired. Since the last approval the property was re-zoned and the required setbacks changed. This is an application for the same location that was previously approved. The variance will allow a 4-foot encroachment into the required 5 foot rear yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting where the new building will be built and where the current building exists. A variance was previously reviewed and granted. The approval expired and the structure did not get rebuilt in the time of approval. Applicant is now seeking to build and a new variance is required. The Downtown district zone has expanded and requires a new setback, which is 5 feet from the property line. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Lance DeBar, 320 Willow Street, addressed the board. He wanted to see what the main structure looked like before building the accessory building. Audience Participation: none Board Discussion: Boardmember Taylor thinks it is very straightforward. Boardmember McCoy is in approval Boardmember Shuff did not have any questions and stated also that it seemed very straightforward. Boardmember Lawton is in favor of this Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA200029 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 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 August 13, 2020 purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 • The previously existing shed has enjoyed the same 4-foot encroachment. • The 21-foot tall wall and 37-foot tall wall of the new development will not be impacted by the 11-foot tall shed. • This was previously approved before the zoning change. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Meyer, Stockover, Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 5. APPEAL ZBA200030 – APPROVED Address: 2720 Nottingham Sq. Owner/Petitioner: Sue Kenney Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b) Project Description: This is a request for the front deck to encroach 6 feet into the required 20-foot front setback, leaving a 14-foot setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting site plan and illustrations. The request is to build a front porch into the front setback. Zone RL setback is 20 feet as opposed to 15-foot setbacks in other zones. There would be two tiers to the porch. There will be a 2-foot grade and handrailing. The porch will be uncovered. Boardmember McCoy asked about the 20-foot setback. Beals clarified that he was pointing out that in the R-L district the 20-foot setback is required, as opposed to other districts which are 15-foot front setbacks. Boardmember Shuff wanted to clarify that the property line is the back sidewalk. Beals confirmed this. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Sue Kenney, 2720 Nottingham Square, addressed the board. She shared some additional photos and noted that the neighborhood is mainly a front yard neighborhood which fronts to a park. The purpose of building the deck is to enjoy the neighborhood. She also noted that the existing porch is somewhat dangerous. It does not have railing and has a steep drop-off. Safety was a main concern in building a new porch. She has reached out to Neighbors and they are in support. The proposal was also approved by the HOA board. Contractor Jordin Schweptman, 1448 Antero Dr, Loveland, addressed the board and shared an additional drawing of the deck. Beals requested that the applicants send the additional materials via email so that they can be included in the packet. Applicant Kenney added that she did not want spindles on the railing as it would impair the view. Boardmember Stockover asked whether the stairs need to be considered in the calculation of the setback. Beals confirmed that the setback is to the edge of the deck and the stairs would not be a problem. Audience Participation: none Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff: very straightforward. It has HOA approval. Would have been nice to have letters from neighbors. Boardmember Lawton – an improvement from the original deck from a safety and aesthetic standpoint. Boardmember Meyer – it will be nominal and inconsequential. Will support. Boardmember McCoy – would like to compliment the applicant on the pictures with the tape, which helped to understand the scope.