Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/14/2020 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 MAY 14, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Boardmembers present except McCoy. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200011 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this building was originally a restaurant and the new tenant is a Dutch Bros. coffee. There are other businesses in the surrounding area. There is a King Soopers shopping center across the street and shopping centers are allowed an increase in sign height. This request is for 4 signs, all taller than allowed. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned if the street monument sign will remain in place. Beals confirmed there will be a monument sign on the property, but he is not clear if it will be this exact one or if it will be redesigned. The applicant can address that question. Applicant Presentation: Mark Bruder with Schlosser Signs, and Hope Bernstein of 2140 W. Elizabeth Street, both addressed the board. Mr. Bruder explained the issue with this property is visibility. There are multiple trees on ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 May 14, 2020 site that they do not want to remove, while trying to ensure the signs are visible to the traffic on Elizabeth. The monument sign will be kept, they will just be changing the panels to reflect this business. Vice Chair LaMastra noted the current monument sign appears to be for 2 businesses. Asked the applicant if they will be just replacing the upper panel or both panels. Mr. Bruder replied they will only be replacing the top panel for their business, not both halves. Boardmember Lawton inquired if the signage proposed here is similar to the other Dutch Bros. locations in town. Mr. Bruder confirmed they are similar. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated he is in support. The King Soopers across the street allows this to work as a commercial area. This is a reasonable request. Boardmember Lawton agreed, this works within the retail character of the area. Boardmember Shuff agreed, based on the location of the shopping center this is very fitting. Vice Chair LaMastra acknowledged the constraints for how logos are proportioned. In reviewing these elevations, these signs are well proportioned and the context of this area supports this variance. Boardmember Meyer pointed out a specific pine tree, stating the placement is unfortunate for viewing the sign. He appreciates the applicant is keeping the tree and will support this variance. Chair Shields stated the improvements are a welcome addition to the corner. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200011 stating the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the property is connected to the other commercial uses not only on that corner as well as the King Soopers across the street and the restaurant to the east. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 2. APPEAL ZBA200012 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this property is at the corner of a public alley and Lyons Street. There is an existing raised porch with stairs and the owner would like to cover the porch and increase the footprint to the north and south and slightly to the east (toward the front setback). The existing porch already encroaches into the front setback and with this proposal would increase one more foot into the setback for a total of 7 feet. Applicant Presentation: Aaron Ellingson, 137 Lyons Street, addressed the board. He explained the increased 1 foot encroachment into the front setback is only for the post footers to support the overhang. This will avoid the supports resting on the current porch. The porch will not be enclosed, it will be covered with a railing. To the north and south the additional encroachment is only for the roof overhang. The porch itself is the exact same footprint. This porch will bring the property in line with the historical character of the house and surrounding neighborhood. The front wall of the house is already 6 inches into the front setback and does not allow them much extra space in the front. They have also had accidents on the porch due to ice and snow and the cover will help eliminate that problem. Audience Participation: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 May 14, 2020 Beals received an email correspondence and read it aloud. The correspondence was from a neighbor Greg Smith, 134 Lyons Street, in support of the variance who looks forward to seeing the completed porch and believes it will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Boardmember Stockover liked the design and will be in support. Boardmember Lawton appreciates the safety aspect and the design and will be in support. Boardmember Shuff mentioned the contextual setback of the neighboring house. This will be in line and he will be in support. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed. It is important to have front porches facing the community and she’ll be in support. Boardmember Meyer appreciates the applicant’s sensitivity to the neighborhood context and will be in support. Chair Shields agreed with all comments. There is already an existing porch, adding the cover will be a nice addition aesthetically and historically. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200012 stating the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: it is a covered porch, not an enclosed porch and is only increasing the footprint one foot from what is existing and the front property line is set back 5 feet from the public sidewalk so it is farther back than it appears. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA200014 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner property on College Avenue and East Oak Street. There is a roof awning right above the entrance and there are windows located on either side of the door which limit sign placement. When walking down the street, pedestrians cannot see the business sign that is flush against the building, the owner would prefer an additional fin sign. Applicant Presentation: Dan Seese of 3830 Capital Drive, and Michele Pullaro of 162 S. College Ave, addressed the board. The distance from the door is actually an additional 4 feet, 2 inches from the entrance. Ms. Pullaro stated she opened the business in October 2019 and since then she often receives comments that people didn’t know the business was there. She’s hoping the fin sign will help grow her business. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton stated this is a reasonable request. Many other signs on this street are comparable, visibility of a sign is important. Boardmember Shuff agreed, this proposal works with the existing constraints on the building. The sign is still in proximity of the entrance and works with the façade. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 May 14, 2020 Vice Chair LaMastra stated it is functionally impossible to adhere to code in this case due to the façade of the building. This is how people shop in downtown, foot traffic from pedestrians seeing the tenant signs. It would be unreasonable to deny this request. Boardmember Meyer agreed with all comments. The proposal is well within reason. Boardmember Stockover has concerns regarding the sign code in general. However, there is no reason to deny this request. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200014 stating the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the existing conditions limit the ability to comply with standards, a similar sign exists on the other tenant entrance and this is a corner unit right next to the street so it will not be crowding any signs to the south. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 4. APPEAL ZBA200015 – APPROVED 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) 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this property is on the corner of S. Whitcomb and W. Olive. This is a smaller parcel size than the neighbors to the south. The property to the south has a garage right on the property line and the property to the east also has a shed on the property line. Both structures encroach in their own setbacks. The proposal today is to build a garage 3 feet from the east property line and 3 feet from the south property line. There was a garage present at this location in recent history. The previous owner demolished the one car garage due to safety concerns and the current owner had just purchased the property this year. The previous garage was on the property line, the proposal is three feet from the property line. They would continue to use the same driveway and curb cut that is already present. The neighboring properties to the east and south are both sharing side property lines. The proposed garage is one story in height. Boardmember Meyer noted this district is N-C-M, confirmed by Beals. Applicant Presentation: Jeffrey Schneider of 375 E Horsetooth Road, and Susan Viney of 300S. Whitcomb Street, addressed the board. Mr. Schneider doesn’t have anything to add at this time. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the elevations of the property. Mr. Schneider explained this would be a simple single story with a gable roof to match the neighborhood. The owner didn’t want to spend money on plans if this variance was not approved by the board. Unfortunately, the previous owner removed the previous garage including the foundation. The roof pitch would be similar to the house which is about an 8/12 pitch. It would comply with Land Use Code and building guidelines. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this is a common request. This should be a nice fit and promotes keeping the rest of the property as open as possible. Boardmember Lawton appreciates the owner providing some setback since there was no setback previously. They do like to see elevations, but he understands that will be reviewed separately. He will be in support. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 May 14, 2020 Boardmember Shuff agreed with comments. Placement seems good, this is a straightforward request. Vice Chair LaMastra stated they would need some encroachment to make a garage work on this property. She does have a concern regarding the pitch on the gable, there could be a fair amount of shading to the adjacent property. Since the neighbor already has a shed in that corner it will not have as great of an impact. She will be in support. Boardmember Meyer stated this is a reasonable request. Chair Shields agreed, this also abuts side property lines for less impact. They also received a letter in support for this project. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200015 stating the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: 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, and the east property is considered a side property line for the abutting neighbor. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. **Boardmember Shuff recused himself for the next item due to a conflict of interest.** 5. APPEAL ZBA200016 – APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this property is on the corner of W. Mountain Ave. and Scott Ave. There is an existing garage on the rear half of the property. That garage would be demolished if this variance is approved. The new garage would be in approximately the same location as the existing garage. The property line to the south is a rear setback for the property in question and a side setback for the neighboring property. The second structure being proposed is a 288 square foot shed and that proposal puts this project 117 square feet over the allowable floor area in the rear half. The garage is 1.5 stories in height with an enclosed staircase and a bedroom in the loft above. The shed is one story. There is a large pine tree on the property line to the south. Applicant Presentation: Heidi Shuff with Studio S Architecture, and Edward Smithwick of 1205 W. Mountain Avenue, addressed the board. The owners have been in this neighborhood for 14 years and have made gradual improvements to their house over the years to match the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Their goal is to protect their cars and have someplace for their family to stay when visiting. The space above the garage is larger because they would like the stairs to be enclosed for weather conditions. The shed space is intended to hold the items in the existing 2 car garage now. Then they can park cars in the first floor of the new garage. Ms. Shuff recognizes that it sounds like a lot of variance requests, but looking at the existing situation and lot this is the best solution. The rear yard setback is nominal and inconsequential since this is a corner lot. The existing garage already sits 5 feet from the rear property line, they are not changing the condition. They are also keeping the low eave height along the property line. The property is a double lot, 100 feet wide, where typically they are usually 35-50 feet wide. Due to the existing front Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 May 14, 2020 setback of 29 feet versus the standard 15 feet, they would only be left with 2.5 feet between the house and garage if the garage was located at the required 15 foot setback. This would leave the extra 15 feet behind the garage unusable. There is an existing patio to the southeast of the home which would be unusable at that point because it would need to be driveway. The proposed detached garage would be the best placement for the property and existing curb cut. The proposed garage is 672 square feet. Since the lot is quite large, the garage is only 5.2% of the total lot area. Also, the additional area is to the west side of the proposed garage, so it only adds to the length of the structure, not the overall mass. There is an existing shed that is about 8x10 feet in the southwest corner of the lot. The shed is currently placed 1 foot from the west and south property lines, that shed would be removed and the new shed will be 5 feet from both property lines. The shed placement is as far south as possible to maintain the existing tree without causing damage. The shed would be fairly blocked from the west and south neighbors, making the eave height variance nominal and inconsequential. There is a hardship created by the existing house as it’s placed 29 feet from the front property line, therefore 782 square feet of the home is located on the rear half. They are still well within the allowed square footage for the entire lot. Boardmember Stockover asked for more details on the shed. Mr. Smithwick stated the shed was present prior to their purchase of the home 14 years ago. It is on some type of concrete pad. Boardmember Lawton wanted to know the size of the shed and what it currently contains. Mr. Smithwick stated it is approximately 8 feet by 10 feet and it contains wheelbarrows and gardening tools. Vice Chair LaMastra asked for the general use of the lawn are to the west and south of the primary building. Mr. Smithwick confirmed that is the backyard open space where they spend time in the yard as a family. The patio area faces Scott Ave and is behind a fence that will be replaced. Chair Shields asked for a clarification on the garage square footage. The ceiling of the garage loft is under 7.5 feet, so the 2nd floor square footage is not counted toward the square footage of the building. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover has no concerns with the garage. The design fits the area and is using the existing curb cut. The current shed will be about the same size as the garage and placed 5 feet from the setback so it will be right against the tree. The shed seems big for the space, but it’s tucked away from everyone except the neighbors who have not shown any opposition. Ms. Shuff clarified the existing shed is 8x10 and the proposed shed is 18x16. They are adding 6 feet to the depth and shifting it 4 feet to the north. The homeowner field measured the drip line of the existing tree to ensure they are outside that area. The shed will be further south from the existing north wall of the garage. The neighbor to the south will gain about 10 feet of wall, but the building will be 4 feet further from their property line. Mr. Smithwick has spoken with the neighbor regarding their plans, the neighbor is supportive. There will be no windows facing down into their yard. Boardmember Lawton asked about the correspondence received in the packet and who that is from. Beals read the correspondence from Mike Ryan, he is in support of the variance. Mr. Smithwick is not sure who that is, does not recognize the name. Lawton thinks the garage placement is good. The shed circumstance is relatively self-imposed so he is undecided on the shed. Vice Chair LaMastra stated she has no issues with the garage and covering the stair access makes sense for a guest room. She would not expect the applicant to remove an outdoor space and place a structure that close to the primary building. LaMastra doesn’t have any issues with how the shed will impact the neighbors or the length of wall along the rear property line. The property to the south is their side lot line, which would potentially be facing the side of a house with the same view. She understands it could be located somewhere else on the site, but the way the house is positioned centrally in the lot, that would sever the usable outdoor space. The floor area is a hardship with the location of the house being set so far back from the front lot line. The shed is large and accommodating the extra 117 square feet seems nominal. LaMastra would be open to a compromise of granting a variance for the setback but not the floor area, so the shed would be a slightly smaller structure. Boardmember Meyer agreed the garage makes sense, the shed is questionable. He is surprised by the size, but there are no neighbor complaints. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 May 14, 2020 Chair Shields allowed Mr. Smithwick to address the board again. Mr. Smithwick stated he did reduce the size of the shed by 80% from the current garage space. They have a large number of bicycles, plus a snowblower, lawn mower, and other items. Chair Shields stated the garage makes sense. The size is very large for a shed, but he doesn’t see it affecting the neighboring properties. Boardmember Stockover asked the applicant about the rainwater runoff. Mr. Smithwick confirmed the area between the shed and the back of the existing garage is garden area and it would remain. Stockover asked if they have any drainage issues and if the lot is sloped. Mr. Smithwick confirmed the lot is flat and there is no puddling. Ms. Shuff stated they do not currently have a survey of the elevation grades. Their proposal is to have the drainage from the roof move to Scott Ave. From the south side of the structure that should be doable, in the absence of a survey it’s hard to know for sure. Water from the north side of the shed will drain to the main part of the yard. Boardmember Stockover stated nobody except the neighbors will know this variance is there. He will be in support of both structures. Vice Chair LaMastra asked if they would still be struggling with the size of the shed if the rear lot floor area ratio was not a concern. Discussion regarding the location of the lot lines and the map images. Ms. Shuff explained the accessor’s lot lines and how it was measured. Discussion between Beals, Ms. Shuff and boardmembers on the lot lines showed on the map image. If the front property line is off, then the ratios of the rear half of the lot will be affected. If the house is closer to the front property line, then there is less of an impact on the rear half allowable square footage. Boardmember Lawton stated another option might have been to add more floor area to the garage and then there is no need for the large shed. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200016 stating the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: there is an existing garage in the approximate location proposed, 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 5 foot setback from the shared property line, the proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the overall lot. Regarding the shed, there is an existing shed that will be replaced with a larger shed, the shed will be shielded from the west by the west neighbor’s shed so as not to impose on the neighbor to the west, the shed will not impose any shading to the neighbor to the south, and there is no neighborhood opposition to either the shed or garage. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. **Secretary’s Note, the board took a 5 minute break** 6. APPEAL ZBA200017– APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting on a map the location of the property line and the additional dedicated right of way. The two structures that are being proposed, are both sheds that will encroach into the setbacks. Minimum lot size in this district is at least half an acre. There are other accessory structures and a propane tank in the area. This property was annexed into the city, some structures were established while the property was still in the county. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 May 14, 2020 Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the additional dedicated right of way. Beals explained the lot was not replatted, it was a dedicated by a legal description when this property became part of the city. Discussion regarding the location of public right of way versus division of a lot. The owner still owns both sides of the public right of way, the applicant can clarify further. Chair Shields asked if there are any sight line issues and if there is a need for engineering to be involved. Beals explained there are no issues that he knows of, engineering was not consulted on this variance. Staff Havelda disclosed that during the staff presentation she realized the applicants are her neighbors and their children sometimes play together. She does not believe this falls under Article 9 Section 4 of the charter because she does not have a personal or financial interest in the variance, but she would like this noted on the record. No boardmembers voiced their opposition in Havelda being involved in this item. Havelda remained for legal advice. Applicant Presentation: Brandy Hodgson and Arthur Judson, 2510 Falcon Drive, addressed the board. Ms. Hodgson stated the larger area including the right of way is what they were assessed on and what they pay taxes on. The dirt road goes through their property. There was talk at one point about developing the road, but they were told it would be too costly especially since it does not access that many properties. They also own the property south and east of Falcon Drive. They would like to maintain the land and keep it inline with the neighborhood’s rural feel. The shrubbery that was recently trimmed was an invasive non-native plant. They are replacing it with native plants. Originally, they had measured the setbacks from the property line and thought they had plenty of space. Afterwards, they learned they needed to measure from the right of way. There is also a utility right of way with the powerlines that go through their land. They understand the city will eventually put that underground and they will not impede that process. There are no sight line issue and there are not many residents along this road. They did speak to the neighbors regarding the setbacks. The neighbors to the west and southwest have both given verbal support. One neighbor said they would email the board and one will try to attend the hearing today. There is one additional neighbor that voiced concerns that don’t involve the setback but involve other things that they need to discuss with her separately. Chair Shields asked about the location of the sheds. Ms. Hodgson explained they have not used that part of their land in the past due to growth and a barb wire fence. Since removing the fence and plants they hope to use that area as more of a lawn space with the 2 sheds placed to help provide privacy from the road. They could not go further north because of a flood plain. This proposal was the best for the use of space and for the neighbors. Audience Participation: Mike Robinson, 2921 Moore Lane, addressed the board. He has lived in this neighborhood for 40 years. Some of the steps regarding right of ways in the past were not filed or were not filed correctly. The neighborhood is a mismatch of right of ways and property lines. Prior to the current owners, this property had a dilapidated house that was knocked down. These owners have improved the property. Mr. Robinson did share a concern with Ms. Hodgson regarding any doors on the south side of the southern most shed. They have three young children and other children come visit. Trash trucks and other traffic sometimes move too quickly along the dirt road and he was concerned for the safety of the children coming in and out of the shed. Ms. Hodgson did state they plan to have a fence along the road. Mr. Robinson is in support of the variance at this point. Elizabeth Bauer, 2901 Moore Lane, addressed the board. She is not for or against the proposal. Her main concern is regarding the sewer line that they have been working to bring to Moore Lane. There is a connection with the city sewer to the north and there is a manhole located on Ms. Bauer’s property. The original contractor they hired for this project went out of business and the city will be helping with the construction in the future. The timeline was originally scheduled for this fall, but given current events they are no longer sure when this will occur. Part of the reason the contractor lost money is this area requires a lot of dewatering, the water table is around 4 feet below the surface. There are 2 water lines located in this corner where the sheds will be located. The previous contractor started boring at this corner but it failed because the soil is unstable. When this does get constructed there will be large equipment needed on site. A right of way of 60 feet looks adequate, but the contractor was told he might have to dig up the water lines and there may be addition construction needed in this area. There is a propane tank in Moore Lane right of way. There is also a water line Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 May 14, 2020 close to the propane tank and the buildings have to be situated about 25 feet from the tank and could possibly need their own additional buffer. There are also issues of trash trucks or other vehicles straying off the road in the winter and the propane tank and other structures need additional space. Beals read correspondence received from neighbors, Rick and Linda Voss, 2905 Moore Lane. They have no problem with the variance request, it will not impede flow of traffic. All designs fit in with the neighborhood. Vice Chair LaMastra inquired about the letter that Ms. Bauer submitted, requesting to see the plans. She also asked about the setback from the propane tank and if it was within the right of way. Beals confirmed there would be follow up with the building department to ensure the propane tank is properly permitted and the sheds are the proper distance from that propane tank. If additional space is needed for construction, the contractor would need to have a temporary construction easement onto the property. Any utility provider that needs additional room for construction would have to negotiate that with the property owner directly. Boardmember Meyer requested clarification on the exact setbacks. Beals explained the setbacks are 20 feet along the south property line and 25 feet along the west property line. Meyer asked the applicant what is keeping them from pushing the sheds further into the property to not encroach in the setbacks. Ms. Hodgson explained if they avoided the setbacks it would place the sheds in the middle of the yard where their kids play. The building is already 50 feet from the street plus another 20 feet resulting in 70 feet behind the shed that would be unusable. It feels like a hardship to pay for so much land that is being used as a buffer for a road that will most likely never be developed. They don’t want to build in the right of way, they just want the right of way to be accounted for. Boardmember Shuff is not concerned with the western shed, there is already a buffer. He is concerned with the southern shed’s proximity to Falcon Dr. The 22 foot distance might seem abundant but in this context it’s fairly close. He appreciates the hardship being stated, but would like further discussion regarding the proximity to Falcon Dr. Ms. Hodgson replied the minimum requirement is 20 feet so they have 2 extra feet of space. They are also planning to put a fence on Falcon Dr. Vice Chair LaMastra asked for further explanation regarding where the propane tank is on the site plan. Ms. Hodgson explained on the current slide where it is located, also stating when they had to replace the propane tank, they knew they had a utility right of way. The person consulted advised them to place the propane tank at least 6 feet clear of the powerlines. Also, due to the size of the propane tank, it is required to be at least 25 feet from a building, which is the case in this proposal. They are planning to put in a fence there as well after all the construction. Boardmember Lawton asked about the building uses, stating the application paperwork indicated one will be a garage and one will be a shed. For the garage, is there currently access from the road? Mr. Judson replied the building furthest south is the garage, with a garage door, but will be used for a woodworking shop. They keep evolving their plans as they go through this process. The buildings will also be used for crafts, and to store bikes and other items. Both buildings are single story, shed style roofs with a maximum height of 10 feet. Ms. Hodgson stated she appreciated Ms. Bauer’s concern about the setbacks. She acknowledges the sewer project has been frustrating but believes their proposal will still provide ample space for future work in this area. They want to improve the neighborhood, they enjoy living here. Ms Bauer replied her only concern is the tank might be in the right of way. She wants the owners to do what they want with their own property but would like to ensure the proper steps are taken. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated he is familiar with the area and he will be in support of this variance. He does not see this as area that will be more developed in the future. Acknowledged the water table issue, but 60 feet is a lot of room to work with. Being annexed into the city can create hardships. Boardmember Lawton will also be in support. The owners have showed their care for the land and willingness to make improvements. This is a complicated situation for set backs and right of ways, but this is a good use for the space. Boardmember Shuff stated shifting the buildings north slightly would not impact their use and is not sure there is a hardship present. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 May 14, 2020 Vice Chair LaMastra brought up the U-E zone, stating the likelihood of this area developing is low. Would like verification that the propane tank is outside of the public right of way and the buildings are adhering to the appropriate setbacks. She will be in support of the variance though. Chair Shields asked staff if the building department will be addressing the propane tank. Beals confirmed that the building department will follow up and ensure there is a permit and the proper setbacks are in place. Boardmember Meyer appreciated the applicant’s thoughtfulness to capture the essence of the setbacks while balancing the circumstance of the property. He will be in support Chair Shields will also be in support. The locations make sense for the layout of the lot. Shields agreed with Shuff that it could be pushed further in, but he is okay with the 21 foot setback. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200017 stating the modification of standard will not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: 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, and the west property line abuts a public road that only provides access to three other properties. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, LaMastra, Shields, Stockover and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning