Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/12/2020 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: 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 NOVEMBER 12, 2020 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers were present.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve the October 8, 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 ZBA200041 – APPROVED Address: 2500 Bradbury Ct Owner/Petitioner: Jeffrey Blayney Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) & 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a shed to encroach 5 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback (shed wall is proposed to be 10 feet from the rear property line) and for the eaves to encroach 8 feet into the setback when only 2.5 feet is permitted. There is a 7-foot utility easement along the rear property line and the eaves will not encroach into the easement (eaves are at a 7-foot setback). Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is in a cul-de-sac. The shed will be in the Northeast corner. One corner meets the setback but the other does not due to the angle of the property. There will be minimal visibility for the neighbors. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 November 12, 2020 Applicant Presentation: Jeffrey Blayney, 2500 Bradbury Ct addressed the board, noting that the shed walls are actually 8 feet high and the total height is 11 feet. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover noted that there is significant vegetation in the neighborhood. The foliage would minimize the view from the outside. He did not have any concerns. Boardmember Lawton likes the detailed plans. Boardmember Shuff is also supportive, as he believes there is minimal impact. Boardmember LaMastra asked for clarification on the drawing but was in favor. Boardmembers Meyer and McCoy were also in favor. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by LaMastra to approve ZBA200041 for the following reasons: Granting the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical conditions and other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is subject to the request. The wedge- shaped lot creates a narrowing rear setback, a strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Yeas: Lawton,Shields, LaMastra, Meyer, Stockover, Shuff, and McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA200042 – APPROVED Address: 1030 W Oak St Owner: Brenda Carlile Petitioner: Tad Bjorlie Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for a patio cover to align with the existing home and to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side-yard setback (3 feet from the property line). Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the request is to build a patio cover to align with the existing property. There is an existing patio area already. Applicant Presentation: Applicants, Brenda Carlile, 1030 W Oak St, and Jordin Schwettman, 1448 Antero Dr, Loveland addressed the board. The house is already 3 feet away from the 5-foot setback. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Lawton thinks it is in line with the home design and is in favor. Boardmember Shuff noted that if it was an addition, it might be more challenging. Because it is a deck, he does not have any issues. Boardmembers McCoy and Shields are in favor. Boardmember Meyer asked about the overhang requirements. Beals clarified that an eave can encroach 30 inches. Meyer asked whether a 2nd variance request would be needed for this. Mr Schwettman noted that the 1-foot overhang was included in the design. Beals stated the fire department and the building department would need to review. The applicants agreed that they will keep the overhang to 6 inches. Stockover clarified that it was a new roof line and not an extension of the old roof line. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve ZBA200042 for the following reasons: Granting the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted would 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 the the following Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 November 12, 2020 findings: The patio is open on three sides and the proposed cover matches the existing setback of the house, the proposed cover extends 12 feet along the side property line. The new eave overhang will be 2.5 feet from the property line Yeas: Lawton,Shields, LaMastra, Meyer, Stockover, Shuff, and McCoy. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 3. APPEAL ZBA200043 – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Address: 215 Osiander St Owner/Petitioner: Lynne Vaughan Zoning District: C-C-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) & 3.8.19(A)(6)) Project Description: This is a request for a patio cover to encroach 4.5 feet into the 5-foot side setback (6 inches from property line) and the eaves to encroach 5 feet into the side setback, 2.5' feet further than permitted 2.5 feet allowed. The Old Town North subdivision received a modification for 4-foot side setbacks. This is only a request for an additional 3.5 foot encroachment per the subdivision standards. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the properties on Jerome street have garages that back into the property in question. The patio cover has walls that extend partially down from the roof, making the encroachment extend further into the lines. The eave in the drawing appears to extend over the property line. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Dick Anderson, 422 E Oak St, addressed the board. Since the application was submitted, they have revised the design of the overhang to be 2 feet from the west property line instead of on the west property line. Also, the structure that comes down has been eliminated and the structure itself will align with the column which is 3 feet from the property line. The variance request would be a 3 foot setback instead of the required 4 foot setback. They are asking for a 6-inch variance in the overhang. Boardmember Shields clarified that the screen will still be there, but will not be a screen on the West elevation. Boardmember LaMastra wanted clarification that the structure now meets the approval of the building dept and the fire department. Applicant Anderson confirmed. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover was reluctant to approve at first. Only impact for him would be the ability to maintain the space and separation to meet code. Since they have already gone through this process, he would be in approval. Boardmember Lawton would be in favor with the modifications prescribed. He asked whether new drawings were needed. Beals stated that the Board could table if they wanted to see new drawings, but it was not necessary to approve. Boardmember Shuff would be in approval with the modifications described. Boardmembers McCoy and LaMastra agreed they would be in support with the modifications. Boardmember Meyer asked whether this would be a variance to the fence code. LaMastra stated that the fence code would only be applicable if it is attached to the fence. Mr Anderson clarified that the wall will not be attached to the fence. The column will be in line and attached to the fence. He stated that they could move it to the South away from the fence if necessary. The purpose of the wall is to be a wind break. LaMastra is not sure whether she would be in support now that it is known to be an extension of the fence. Stockover noted the interesting makeup of the architecture in the neighborhood. He believes due to the uniqueness of the neighborhood, this will fit in fine. Beals looked up code and noted that section 3.8.11 D states that anything added to the fence is considered part of the fence. Meyer was concerned that this might lead to a loophole when others want to add to a fence. Shuff asked if the applicant was willing to remove the wall part. Mr Anderson said that he cold move the post to be adjacent to the fence Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 November 12, 2020 instead of part of the fence. Stockover asked about the materials being used. He asked if there could be some delineation from the fence. Mr Anderson stated this could be done. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200043 for the following reasons: Granting the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposed as submitted would 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings and conditions: The conditions would change the request for the patio cover to encroach from 4.5 feet to 2 foot into the 5 foot setback. The eaves would encroach an additional 6 inches into the required setback. The structure no longer crosses the property line, and with the finding that this is largely considered that the context of the neighborhood is very eclectic and modern. The condition that the material finish of the column be set apart from the construction of the fence. Per code 2.10.4(H) 3. Yeas: Lawton, McCoy, Shuff, Stockover, LaMastra, and Shields. Nays: Meyer THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4. APPEAL ZBA200044 – APPROVED Address: 3209 Fiore Ct Owner/Petitioner: Sara Bombaci Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow a deck to encroach 3 feet into an 8-foot rear-yard setback Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is on a cul-de-sac which backs to HOA open space and behind that is a city-owned retention pond. This is set far from any other residential structures. There is a 5-foot utility easement which the deck would not encroach but would extend 3 feet into the rear yard setback. The deck is not covered. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Sara Bombaci, 3209 Fiore Ct, addressed the board, noting this is a hardship due to the yard size. It is nominal and inconsequential because it will be outside of the utility easement and will not encroach upon any neighbors as the house backs to open space. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated it is an easy decision based on the open space. He will be in support. Boardmember Lawton noted that it looked like there were other neighbors with similar decks. He does not see any impact. Boardmembers Shuff LaMastra, Meyer and McCoy will also be in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200044 for the following reasons: Granting the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposed as submitted would 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: The HOA and detention pond behind the property provides efficient separation from other residential developement, and the deck is open on 3 sides and does not have a covering. Yeas: LaMastra, Stockover, Shuff, McCoy, Lawton, Meyer, Shields Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 November 12, 2020 5. APPEAL ZBA200045 – APPROVED Address: 226 N. Loomis Ave Owner: Paul Avery Petitioner: Jonathan Day Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow an addition to a single-family dwelling to encroach 1.5 feet into the required 5 foot north side-setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the primary structure already encroaches into the setback by 1.5 feet. With the addition and porch, they will still be meeting the front 15 foot setback. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Paul Avery, 226 N Loomis Ave and Jonathan Day,111 S Roosevelt Ave, addressed the board. In 1998 there was an additional 1.5 feet of property line that was sold to the adjacent property, which added to the hardship. The neighbor who will be impacted provided a letter of support. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover thinks this is a reasonable request. The setback is further than the existing house. It is well thought-out and has neighbor support. Boardmember Lawton added that the design is in character with the neighborhood. Boardmember Shuff thinks this is reasonable given the narrow lot. Boardmembers McCoy, LaMastra, Shields and Meyer are also in support Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA200045 for the following reasons: : Granting the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposal as submitted would 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: The existing structure encroaches further than the proposed encroachment, the proposed encroachment is 10 feet in length. Yeas: Shields, Meyer, LaMastra, Stockover, Shuff, McCoy, Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED.  OTHER BUSINESS - none  ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 10:30 Shelley LaMastra, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning