Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/12/2020 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: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING MARCH 12, 2020 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All members present except Vice Chair LaMastra. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve the February 13, 2020 Minutes. The motion was adopted, with Meyer abstaining. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA200007 – APPROVED Address: 1105 Hillcrest Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Kai Kleer Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request for a shed to encroach 2 feet into the required 5 foot side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. Beals first provided background, stating if a building permit is required, then the applicant must meet setbacks. The structure is required to be permitted if over 120 square feet or over 8 feet in height. The proposed shed is exactly 120 square feet and is 11 feet in height on one side, tapering down to about 8 feet height at the side that faces the neighbor. The 11 foot height is what prompted the setbacks to be in effect. The shed meets the 15 foot rear yard setback. South of this property there is a ditch that separates the property owner from the neighboring property. The shed would be on the north side, with the 8 foot high side facing the north and the 11 foot high side facing in towards the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 12, 2020 Picture displayed of the backyard that shows the neighboring property has an accessory building encroaching into setback as well. Boardmember Stockover asked about the height of the fence in the picture. Beals will let the applicant speak to that. Applicant Presentation: Kai Kleer, 1105 Hillcrest Dr., addressed the board. That is a 6 foot fence in the picture of his backyard, the neighboring accessory building is about 3 feet taller than the fence and about 6 inches from the shared property line. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated this seems straight forward, no neighborhood opposition, and plenty of space in the backyard. The height of the fence and the neighbor’s shed indicates this is an appropriate location for the accessory building, he will be in support. Boardmember Lawton agreed, this looks typical of the neighborhood and presents no detriment. This appears to be a nice addition to the property. Chair Shields also agreed. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA200007 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the proposed shed faces a neighboring accessory building, the proposed structure is 8.63 feet in height along the north property line, and the proposed encroachment is 12 feet in length and 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. Yeas: McCoy, Meyer, Lawton, Shields, Shuff, Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. **Boardmember Shuff recused himself for the next item due to a conflict of interest.** 2. APPEAL ZBA200008 – APPROVED Address: 714 W. Mountain Ave. Owner: Hanke Thode Petitioner: High Craft Builders Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)2.; 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(D)(6); 4.7(E)(3) Project Description: This request proposes an expansion of an existing accessory building and requires four variances. The first variance is to exceed the overall floor area allowance for the lot by 1065 square feet. The second variance is to exceed the rear half floor area allowance by 280.25 square feet. The third variance is to exceed the allowable floor area of an accessory building by 726 square feet, where the max floor area is 600 square feet. The fourth variance is to encroach 4 feet 8 inches into the required 5 foot rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. On this property, the primary house in the front, accessory building in the back. The accessory building was partially built near the time of the original structure and in the 80’s there was a large carport added. The request today is to expand the accessory building to accommodate more practical use of the structure for vehicle parking. The existing structure sits along the east and north property line. The carport extends towards the south. The proposed addition would extend to the west. In this zone every property has a certain amount of floor area based on the lot size. The property already exceeds that, so this request would increase that nonconformity. The existing structure sits right off the property line to the north and the proposed addition would be aligned with the existing structure, also encroaching into the setback. The amount of floor area allowed in the rear half is also already being exceeded. An accessory building is only allowed 600 square feet. Code defines floor area as everything on the first floor, plus the second floor if there is a ceiling height of 7.5 feet or greater. The floor area does Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 March 12, 2020 include carports. The accessory structure did go before the Landmark Preservation Commission and there was desire to preserve the barn doors, which lead the applicant towards the current proposal. Boardmember Stockover asked about the circumference of the tree in the picture, Beals will let the applicant respond. Boardmember Meyer inquired if the carport was built prior to code changes that include carport square footage in the total allowed. Beals confirmed the same. Boardmember Shields asked if the carport was open on all three sides. Beals confirmed the same. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Gaines with High Craft Builders, and Hank Thode property owner of 714 W. Mountain Ave., addressed the board. The landmark status of the property makes this project unique. The existing carriage house has barn doors facing the driveway towards Mountain with a carport placed in front of the barn doors. The goal of this project is to make the garage accessible for two cars instead of one. When landmarked in 2015, the owner believed the carriage house had been excluded from the landmark designation and they made plans to change the carriage house accordingly. Afterwards, they realized the accessory building was included in the landmark, they began working with Landmark staff and went to Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). What they are proposing today was approved by the LPC. They had originally asked to replace the barn doors with an overhead door and LPC denied that request, so they added an overhead garage door facing the existing alley behind the building. It will be challenging to get a car in that door at a 90 degree turn from the alley. The barn doors from the Mountain Ave side only allow a 7’ 7” opening. Therefore, the addition will be the only useable indoor parking space for the aging owner. Landmarking a property can be seen as a self-imposed hardship, but the owner did not anticipate preserving the barn doors. The carport was built in the 80’s and hasn’t been updated. Carports have been counted as floor area since 2018. Mr. Gaines believes the intent of the code is to prevent the carports from being filled in over time to serve as a garage. In this instance, there is no way Landmark Preservation would allow them to fill in the carport and also have the addition in the rear. If the carport square footage is subtracted from the total, the total lot overage is only 470 square feet and the total for the rear half would then be in compliance with an extra 315 square feet. The proposed addition would be set back 4” from the alley. There is a large spruce tree in the backyard, the owner planted the tree when he was 9 years old as a gift for his father. They are trying to save the tree, and the placement of the tree does not allow them to push the addition further back from the alley. Several other primary or secondary structures of comparable size are already placed along this alley with zero setback. Chair Shields asked if they considered using the existing carport to make it an enclosed garage. Mr. Gaines confirmed they had, they looked at 2 options, one was infilling the carport. The LPC didn’t provide a strong direction for one option over the other, but ultimately the owner went ahead with the option for the addition. Either addition would compromise a historic aspect of the building. However, this option only obscures 2 windows that will still be preserved and the addition is completely reversable. Filling in the carport would be on the primary elevation of the building towards Mountain Avenue, it would be much larger in size, and would obscure the barn doors, having a larger impact on the property. Boardmember Lawton stated infilling the carport would still have the issue with the barn door not showing. Lawton is curious how that was acceptable to LPC. Mr. Gaines replied that was only presented to the LPC at the preliminary conceptual review level. They didn’t get to the point of a final vote. It was certainly viewed as a downside to block the doors. Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation planner with the City of Fort Collins, addressed the board. During this conceptual review, both options were reviewed and neither was deemed ideal. The LPC recommendations given were to focus on the preservation of historic material, and balance that with historic design. The side addition was considered to be more sensitive from a design perspective. The option with the infill of the carport was not entirely rejected because it did preserve a considerable amount of historic material. Boardmember McCoy asked if there would be an issue if the carport came down. Mr. Bertolini responded that from the Landmark Preservation perspective, since the carport is a non-historic addition, they would encourage its removal. However, they cannot require that because it was in place prior to the landmark designation. Boardmember Meyer requested clarification on how much historical material is being saved and how that process is done. Mr. Bertolini explained the LPC approved the side addition to maximize Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 March 12, 2020 preservation and visibility of historic material including the carriage doors. This includes preserving most of the exterior materials, rehabilitating historic windows, and retaining most of the historic building as visible. Generally, this met the national standards that are used for LPC. The addition hides less character defining material than if the garage were enclosed. The 2 windows on the west elevation will be preserved during the addition. Audience Participation: John Gascoyne, 718 W Mountain Ave, resides immediately next door to the west and has lived there over 35 years. His house is also historically preserved. Mr. Thode described the proposed addition to him and nothing about it will affect Mr. Gascoyne’s property. The property located on the other side of Mr. Thode has been abandoned for many years. Therefore, Mr. Gascoyne is the person most affected by this project and he is in support. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover reviewed the options, this does seem to be the best one. This is adding 300 square feet in the back corner of the lot that is obscured by landscaping. This won’t impact anyone except the one neighbor who spoke in support. The intent of the code is to keep livable structures to a minimum and address car traffic. This is a useable garage in an appropriate place. Boardmember McCoy remained undecided. Struggling with the need for an addition in an accessory building when there is already a carport. There is currently a massive roof from the carport and the accessory building. The code limits square footage and this is a huge variance from that figure. Boardmember Meyer asked if the applicant had a forester look at the tree and drip line. Mr. Gaines confirmed they did, a letter is present in the packet. Meyer stated it appears they put a lot of thought into the proposal. He’s not opposed to the carport infill since it could be torn down in the future and the barn doors would still be present. That’s also true of the addition on the west side. Meyer asked about the preservation of the windows and siding with the addition. Mr. Gaines explained the addition will be created in a way that makes it completely reversable. They are cutting in a doorway between the 2 windows. The whole building is being re-sided and will always be seen as a distinct reversable addition. Filling in the carport would fix it in place on the property, versus something that could easily be removed one day. Boardmember Lawton referenced the examples given of other properties in close proximity and asked staff if there were variances present. Beals responded that he does not know if there were variances on all those properties. However, most were larger footprint carriage houses and might not have had a large attached carport like this property. Also, per code, if the ceiling height on the second floor was not tall enough, that square footage wouldn’t be counted towards the total. Floor area is also based on the individual lot size. Boardmember Stockover brought up runoff, desire to ensure they are not causing a rainwater runoff issue by adding another 300 square feet of roof. Beals is unaware of any flooding issues in the area from a city standpoint. Stockover is not a fan of carports, they do not provide as much coverage from the elements as you would think. Inquired if the property was out of square footage compliance before 2018 when the status of carports changed. Beals replied that he was probably still out of compliance for the overall lot. Stockover does not think this is a very large impact. Chair Shields asked if they considered removing the carport or reducing the footprint of carport. Mr. Gaines replied they could consider reducing the carport if needed. Currently the carport is still used and nice to provide less shoveling of snow as the owner ages. The carport is almost 30 feet deep. Boardmember Lawton reviewed the pictures of the accessory structure and there are a lot of design improvements on the back of the building, facing the alley. He is struggling with square footage on the back, but the aerial photo looking at other nearby properties reveal similar layouts. Beals noted the code change to include carport square footage was also meant to limit the amount of backyard covered by roof. Residents are more likely to cover their backyard for cars than for patio area. Hence why carports are counted in the square footage and not patios. Boardmember Stockover agreed with staff. If the owner started with a clean slate, it’s doubtful the homeowner would build that large of a carport in today’s environment. The barn doors overlap and slide along each other, they do not swing open, which seriously limits the opening. This is a minimal request, there is no neighborhood opposition, this doesn’t look like a flip and sell. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 March 12, 2020 Chair Shields appreciates the proposed addition, it’s a sensitive solution to the problem. He does wish the carport was smaller. In the context of the neighborhood, there are a lot of large structures in close proximity to this one. He would be in support of the proposal. Boardmember McCoy was surprised the LPC didn’t make any suggestions regarding the carport, the carport roof is about the same square footage as the primary structure. Stockover made an initial motion based on equal or better and nominal and inconsequential, then withdrew the motion. Boardmember Meyer mentioned since carports are now considered floor area, if the proposal was to enclose the carport, the square footage numbers would not change. Beals confirmed the same. Meyer doesn’t agree with the nominal and inconsequential reasoning, this is well over the allowable floor area already. The hardship is a historic structure. This could be viewed as self-imposed because the homeowner opted into the historic preservation, but Meyer also acknowledges the value it adds to the city. Therefore, he withdraws the self-imposed hardship since this is a city contribution. Boardmember Stockover asked if there was discussion within historic preservation regarding moving the barn doors forward. Mr. Bertolini with Historic Preservation addressed the board. During LPC’s discussion at conceptual review, 2 options were considered: enclosing the carport or the variance in review today. If the carport was enclosed the carriage doors would remain in place. There was not a consideration to move the barn doors to the front of the enclosed carport. Stockover made a motion to approve ZBA200008, seconded by Shields, for the following reasons: granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to public good, because of forgoing unique conditions the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would resulted in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and hardship. This is due to the fact that the property was designated a historic landmark. Friendly amendment by Boardmember Meyer to clarify the hardship is to preserve the historic barndoors on the southside of the structure and therefore the proposal preserves the visibility of barndoors. Stockover accepts amendment. Yeas: Meyer, Lawton, Shields, Stockover. Nays: McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. ***Secretary’s note: 5 minute break**** at 10:02 a.m. 3. APPEAL ZBA200009 – TABLED Address: 144 2nd Street Owner/Petitioner: Michael Rossman Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 4.4(D)(2)(e) Project Description: This is a request to remove the existing house and accessory structure and to build a new house and accessory structure. This request requires three variances. The first variance is to allow the new house to encroach 7 feet into the 15 foot street side-yard setback along Logan Ave. The second variance is to allow a new garage to encroach 2 feet into the 15 foot street side-yard setback along Logan Ave. The third variance is to allow the new house to be 33 feet in height, the require maximum height is 28 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there is an existing house and accessory structure on the property. These structures would be removed, and a new house and garage would be constructed. The new garage would take access off the existing alley. The existing structures currently do not meet the side setback of 15 feet. Note, the setback is taken from the property line, and in this case the property line sits quite a distance from the street curb line. The proposed house would be encroaching into the 15 foot required setback, but does meet the front setback along 2nd street. The proposed garage also encroaches into the side setback on Logan. The initial request is for the primary structure to go 33 feet in height as measured from the highest peak of the roof. This is a 5 foot height encroachment over the 28 foot limit. The materials Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 March 12, 2020 provided are just renderings, not an exact distance between the structures. Currently there is a single-story house, which is a prominent characteristic of the neighborhood. Boardmember Lawton inquired if the new structures would encroach more into the side setback than the current structure. Beals confirmed the encroachment would be less than what is in place currently, but still encroaching. Chair Shields asked how the building height is measured. Beals confirmed the height of the building is measured from original grade at the side property line, not measuring from the grade at the base of the structure. Beals explained this prevents the owner from infilling their property. Boardmember Shuff confirmed the maximum size for an accessory building is 800 square feet. Applicant Presentation: Michael Rossman, 144 2nd St, addressed the board. He did some research on the neighborhood and could not find anything else over 28 feet in height. This prompted him to go back to the designers and they have since brought down the pitch of the roof to be within code. They will no longer be requesting that part of the variance. Regarding the front setback request, this is within the contextual setback and would also not be needed. Beals confirmed the same. Mr. Rossman explained he was recently married and purchased this home with the intent that it will be their forever home. They are both CSU grads and want to preserve and improve Fort Collins. The current house is within the setback, at approximately 4.9 feet from the setback, and they are pulling back further encroach less and be 7 feet from the set back. The current garage was built before they bought the property and was not permitted. The owner will be tearing that down to ensure the new structure will be permitted. Mr. Rossman scanned many properties trying to find the perfect property where they could build within setbacks. Current houses located to the east and west also reside in the setbacks, and this proposal would be improving the Logan side setback. Many houses are being reconstructed in the neighborhood, a couple that are 2 story located on 3rd Street, and another on 2nd Street. They are looking to improve the property and stay within the context of the neighborhood, but also build a house that they can live in and raise children in. They have three dogs and would like a decent backyard as well. The neighbor to the south has sent in a letter saying he was in support of this variance. Audience Participation: John Sargent, 201 2nd Street, his property is located kitty corner to the focus property. He read aloud his letter already submitted to the board and added additional comments. Mr. Sargent does not support the variance and does not agree this proposal is nominal and inconsequential to their neighborhood. Mr. Sargent has spoken with other residents in the neighborhood and they agree with him. The owner has many options to improve his property without violating the code. The city talks about livability in the comprehensive plan as well as preserving historical ties. Development and financial pressures in this neighborhood are limiting the area’s livability. This is not about this specific property owner, but about the city as a whole choosing to abide by its own regulations and make a statement about what working class neighborhoods mean to the present and future. Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff commented there are interesting constraints in this neighborhood. Per the applicant, they are no longer addressing the height as a factor, and the front is within the contextual front setback, so they are down to the sideyard setback as the only issue. He appreciates the concerns of the neighbor. The challenge is the 2 story building contextually in a one story neighborhood. There is enough room on the site, that a design could respond different. Shuff would be more in support of a variance with a one story structure that transitioned to 2 stories at the 15 foot mark. The design is very vertically oriented and very prominent on the corner. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager with the City of Fort Collins, addressed the board. The Buckingham, Alta Vista and Andersonville neighborhoods have been evaluated in the past for their eligibility to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the three neighborhoods combined would qualify. This particular house would contribute to the national register or to a Fort Collins landmark designation. Part of what they look at during this process is the character of the neighborhood, the layout of the lots, the placement of the streets, setbacks, etc. Having an encroachment into the side yard setback with such a strong vertical orientation would affect the character of the neighborhood and could have an impact on that designation in some manner. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 March 12, 2020 Boardmember McCoy asked if this was designated, is there an extra step required by the applicant to build something outside of code. McWilliams explained if the neighborhood were designated, then all changes within the district to the exterior of the buildings or to the site would be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission. They would make a determination as to if the alteration would uphold a historic district. To be clear, currently the neighborhood is not designated. There are discussions for a nomination being brought forward. There are a few other neighborhoods in Fort Collins that have already been granted that designation. Boardmember Meyer commented on the two other houses that are noted as 2 story nearby and asked if they in compliance with code. Beals believes they are in compliance, cannot recall a variance at this time, but even if there was a variance and it was granted, then the property is still considered in compliance. Meyer inquired if those 2 houses would hinder the process for historic designation. McWilliams replied that those 2 houses were constructed on land that was never considered historically part of the Buckingham neighborhood. Therefore, they are not in the district and would not affect the designation. When they look at historically landmarked districts, they evaluate how many properties contribute and how many don’t contribute. Tearing down this house and building any new house would have a negative affect on those numbers. Beyond that, the encroachment would have an impact on the character and historic pattern on the development as defined by the lots. Boardmember Stockover noted this is not a historic district as of yet. From a landowner’s perspective, the future is not known. The board cannot make a decision based on what has not yet been determined. However, building a true 2 story house is not going to fit the character of the neighborhood. New construction is a self-imposed hardship and Stockover believes the proposal should comply with code. Boardmember Lawton brought up the change in roof pitch and design, and stated they are missing the new plans. From the standpoint of new construction, if the proposal is meeting the 28 foot height and if the setbacks were ok, then this would not be heard before the board. If changes are being made already to try and comply, why can’t they change the setback as well. Lawton wouldn’t be in support of the current plan. Boardmember Shuff stated the contextual front setback is very well established in the neighborhood, but established on a one story to one and a half story basis. This also speaks to massing and the scale of current structures. This is a standard size lot, there is not hardship there. The owner could get a larger building, but may have to decide how much yard to keep, like most homeowners. Chair Shields stated looking at this contextually, the surrounding houses are all single story structures. If they are scraping the house, there is a blank slate, they have the option to make something work within the neighborhood context. Boardmember Meyer agreed if they are demoing the current structure, the new structure should try to meet the code as best as possible. Chair Shields address the applicant, asked if they would prefer to table the item and come back at a later time with accurate drawings to reflect the recent changes. Mr. Rossman stated if he kept the house where it is and used the current footprint, he would still need to come back for a variance as the current structure is in the setback. Just about anything he does would require him to come back before the board. He has no problem tabling this and can re-draw a plan that sits at one to one and a half stories. He respects Mr. Sargent’s point of view. The garage was built in 2016 and is not historical at all. If he cut the house back to 30 feet wide and went up 2 stories, then he wouldn’t be in front of the board and could just move forward with construction. He’s trying to be a part of the neighborhood and make the home functional for his situation. Chair Shields acknowledged going before the board is a process where they look very closely at the plans and ensure requirements are being met, this can be frustrating for the homeowner. Boardmember Shuff agreed that building a dream home is a large effort and anytime you ask for a variance there is not a clear path. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to table ZBA200009 for the purposes of obtaining revised documentation with respect to the design and fit of the home to existing guidelines within the next 6 months. Yeas: McCoy, Meyer, Lawton, Shields, Shuff, Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 March 12, 2020 ***Boardmember Shuff recused himself from the following item*** 4. APPEAL ZBA200010 – APPROVED Address: 819 Locust Ct. Owner: Laurene Rogers Petitioner: Heidi Shuff Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(2), 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This request is to encroach 4 feet into the required 15 foot front and street side setbacks. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner lot. Right across Locust Court is an elementary school and the property to the south across Locust Street is the backyard of another property. The proposal is to build a one story addition to the house on the southeast corner. There is a 15 foot setback along both Locust Street and Locust Court. The addition is for a shop with a roll-up door and will include a sink and toilet. The City Engineering Department reviewed the proposal to ensure there are no safety concerns and they have no opposition. Boardmember McCoy clarified this circumstance has 2 front setbacks. Beals confirmed that is the case, when the side set back is to another street, then it will also be 15 feet. Applicant Presentation: Heidi Shuff, 715 W. Mountain Ave, representing her client, also the owner who has been in this house for 23 years. Ms. Rogers raised children in this house and would like to stay in this house. In order to do so, she’d like to expand the garage for a shop for herself and her significant other. Her spouse does woodworking as a hobby, not a profession. They have explored a number of options within the setbacks. Keeping in mind adjacency to the existing garage is critical for the shop. The other side of the garage is not an option due to existing living space. A smaller footprint for the addition did not make it worth the expense and time and would not be functional for shop space. There is an abnormally large radius on the corner of 35 feet, other corners in the neighborhood are 20 feet or less. Ms. Shuff assumes this is because of the nearby bus stop location. Additionally, the one story addition is still within the total allowable square footage for the lot. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover asked if there will be any additional curb cut. Ms. Shuff replied there will not. The existing garage is accessed from Locust Street, there is an overhead door presently, but it’s small, not large enough for a car to enter. There might be a small stoop for chairs, but there will not be a new curb cut required. The only conflict Stockover was concerned with would potentially be a pedestrian conflict for cars backing out, but that’s obviously not the case here and will not impede usage of the sidewalk. Boardmember Meyer mentioned roof overhangs are not allowed to overhang into easements, however, that’s not normally what they review on this board. Meyer noted the difference in the radius on this turn versus the rest of the neighborhood. There is still plenty of visibility as a car making a turn. Chair Shields stated this addition fits in with architecture. Asked Beals for more detail regarding the overhang encroaching onto the utility easement. Beals stated they cannot encorach, the applicant can redesign to remedy the situation. Boardmember Shields made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA200010 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment includes 17 square feet of floor area, the proposed addition is within the allowable floor area, a tree exists in same location as the proposed addition, therefore the variance request will not diverge but 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 contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: McCoy, Meyer, Lawton, Shields, Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 March 12, 2020 • OTHER BUSINESS Board Procedures and Conflicts of Interest, presented by Claire Havelda • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning