Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 05/13/2021 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 13, 2021 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All boardmembers except Lawton were present.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve the April 8, 2021 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously, with LaMastra and Stockover abstaining.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210013 – APPROVED Address: 316 E Trilby Rd. Owner/Petitioner: Robert Yoke Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 2.11 Project Description: This is an appeal of a Community Development Neighborhood Services Director Administrative Interpretation. The applicant requested an interpretation with regards to floor area in the Urban Estate zone district, specifically as it related to a proposed accessory structure. The Administrative Interpretation found that the upper level of the proposed accessory structure qualified as floor area. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted that the property is near the intersection of S. College and E Trilby Rd. The application came in as a building permit. City staff found that the structure had an upper level which counted as floor area. U-E code says that an accessory structure over 2500 square feet is required to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Board. The applicant put in a request for administrative interpretation by the CDNS director, who reviewed the code and found ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 May 13, 2021 that some of the floor area did count towards the overall floor area, which put the structure over the 2500 square feet. The applicant still disagreed and has requested a hearing before the Board today. He showed pictures of the building. The ceiling height on the upper level is greater than 7.5 feet. The bottom level is around 2500sf and any additional area above would put it over the limit. The director narrowed the interpretation down to two questions: 1. Does attic space in the U-E zone count as floor area and if so to what extent. 2. Does a 720sf deduction apply to each building on the site or is a single deduction distributed across the site. Beals stated that the definition in the code does not clearly describe finished or unfinished floor area. The director also took into consideration the ceiling height. The Director concluded the portion of the attic with a 7.5 foot ceiling height should be counted as part of the floor area and that the 720sf garage exemption should be considered on a property- wide basis. Boardmember Meyer asked about the calculation of the upper floor area with a ceiling height of 7.5 feet or greater. Beals stated that he did not make that calculation. He noted that there is already an accessory building that would use the 750 sf. Boardmember Stockover asked whether the entire 2nd floor was floor area. Beals stated that was his understanding. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Robert Yoke, 316 E Trilby Rd, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. Most of the definitions in the Land Use Code do not come from the U-E zone. The intent of the code is to control the volume and shape of the building. He asked the zoning board before the interpretation about the design and height and was told he was within the height code. He would have to do a lot of re-work with many fees. The building would be the same size regardless of the 2nd floor space. He believes this is a gray area in the Land Use Code and believes it is unfair that the City would make him redo the work. Boardmember Meyer asked about the intent of the balconies. The applicant stated that he likes the uniqueness of the building. Building trusses is not a cost savings. He wanted some livable space on the top floor. Meyer asked about his discussion with the zoning department and whether there was documentation of that discussion. He stated that it was just a phone call. He was told different interpretations of the code by different employees in the City. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover asked Beals about the 2nd floor. If there was no 2nd floor would it be allowed. Beals stated that it would be allowed. He clarified that it has to do with floor area. Boardmember Meyer asked whether the additional ceiling height counts as double floor area like in other zones. Beals stated that it does not. Boardmember LaMastra stated that there are different districts for a reason. The U-E district should be less restrictive than the districts which were referenced in the interpretation. Boardmember Shuff mentioned that the focus should be on floor area and what this means. It is not crystal clear in the code. Chair Shields agreed that the applicant encountered some unfortunate events at the City. He believes that it comes down to floor area and look at that definition. Stockover said that he is trying to look at things from the citizen’s perspective. He does not think that floor area should be interpreted as strictly in the U-E district as it is in an Old Town district. He believes it would be a hardship to invest to re-work everything that has been done. He is in favor of letting the project move forward and looking at the code. Shields stated that the issue is whether the Director correctly interpreted the code. Council Havelda agreed with this. LaMastra stated again that the definition of the floor area in the code is measured by the outside walls. Code section 4.7 begins to get more specific as it pertains to certain districts. Shuff agreed that U-E needs to be treated differently, but floor area includes each level. Shields wanted to look at this from the applicant’s perspective. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 May 13, 2021 Shuff wanted to know if there was an exterior wall on the upper level. If it begins at the floor, there is more ambiguity. The applicant stated that the rafters are directly on the floor joists. Stockover asked for clarification on how to make a motion. Council Havelda stated that she sent an email with proposed language. Boardmember Meyer said it seems clear that the homeowner should not be required to understand the Code if the City cannot decide. But this is not coming as a variance request. He wanted to explore the intent of the code as it pertains to the floor area. Boardmember McCoy stated that the code is confusing and that the code does not seem to be applicable to the U-E zone. He would be in favor of overruling the director’s interpretation. Vice Chair LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Stockover to decline to uphold the CDNS Director’s interpretation of ZBA210013 and provide new interpretation finding that the appropriate interpretation of Land Use Code Section 4.2(b)3(e) and the definition found in 5.12 is clear and they do not conflict. Further, it is not necessary to apply other more restrictive zone districts to the U-E zone district. Therefore, a Type 2 review is not appropriate for the 316 E Trilby plans and that they may proceed as originally designed. Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Stockover, Shields, Shuff, McCoy. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS NOT AFFIRMED. *Chair Shields recused himself from the next appeal, due to a conflict of interest. 2. APPEAL ZBA210014 Address: 310 E Prospect Rd Owner: Chance Innis Petitioner: Grant Everitt Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3) & 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the allowable floor area of 1313 square feet on the rear half of the lot by 1402 square feet (2715 total square feet on the rear half). There is an additional request to encroach into the required 15-foot setback by 8 feet (7 feet from the rear property line). Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that this is a unique property in that it faces on to Prospect. The rear lot is based on where the address on the door is. The lot is split differently in this situation. Because of the way the lot splits, most of the house is already in the rear property. Boardmember Meyer asked what the maximum allowable square footage is for the lot. Beals stated that it is 3,151 (30% of the lot area). Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Grant Everitt, addressed the board and agreed to the remote proceedings. The owner is wanting to build a garage and the proposed location seems to be the most appropriate place for it. Given the orientation of the lot, they are hoping to get a variance. Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Meyer thinks that this is straight forward and it is a hardship. Since it is under that allowable floor area, he will be in support. Boardmembers McCoy, Shuff and Stockover agree. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve ZBA10014 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good. There are exceptional physical conditions or other exceptions unique to the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 May 13, 2021 property which is subject to the request as follows: the proposed structure does not exceed the overall floor area for the lot; the front/back orientation creates a shallow lot. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant and 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 contained in Section 1.2.2 Yeas: LaMastra, Shuff, Meyer, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED ** Chair Shields rejoined the meeting. A 5 minute break was taken at 10:01*** ** The hearing resumed at 10:06. Roll call was taken and all 6 members were present. 3. APPEAL ZBA210016 Address: 228 Wood St. Owner/Petitioner: Laura and Michael Wroblewski Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(5) Project Description: This is a request to add a new driveway access/curb cut along Wood St. The code requires access to be taken off the alley when the lot has alley frontage. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there is one house on the property and an accessory building. There is an alley in the back. The existing property has two lots combined to make one parcel. The code requires that when there is an alley, any new vehicle access must come from the alley. This is to keep traffic in the alley and reduce the amount of interaction with pedestrians. It also frees up parking on the street. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the curb cut because the proposal does not show that there is any structure leading to the curb cut. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Laura and Michael Wroblewski, 228 Wood St addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. They submitted a site plan. It is on the North side of the property. The curb cut would not interfere with existing trees. There are no current plans for a garage. The current garage structure is not usable for a car. Many of the properties in the neighborhood already have curb cut driveways. It would be easier for loading/unloading with their young children. Boardmember Shuff asked whether the adjacent neighbors were contacted. Applicant responded that the owners do not live at the property and they have not spoken to them. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the parking in the alley and why parking in the alley is not an option. Applicant responded that there is a fence and landscaping in the way. Chair Shields asked whether Engineering would be involved if a variance was approved. Beals answered that Engineering would be involved. Shields also asked where the applicants currently park. Applicant confirmed that they park in front of the house on the street. Boardmember Taylor asked about whether the other properties with curb cuts were put in prior to the code or through the variance process. Beals speculated that they were probably put in prior. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 May 13, 2021 Audience Participation: (none) Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover thought that the existing building could be modified fairly easily. Also, parking is an issue due to it being public. Putting in a curb cut would transfer parking from public to private. He does not have a strong opinion either way. The applicant noted that they did pursue pouring concrete in the existing building. The building is not habitable. There are leaks in the roof, etc. It would be much more involved than just pouring concrete. Chair Shields wanted clarification on why curb cuts are not allowed when there is an alley. Beals noted that alleys are primarily for vehicles. Also, this frees up parking on the street. Applicant stated that they would not be able to park their car in the existing garage as the west wall is not structurally sound. The current loading/unloading of their children is more disruptive to pedestrians. There is a plan for a gate to be put in to screen the vehicle. Boardmember Shuff acknowledged that there are impacts to curb cuts but he understands the need. He believes there is opportunity to create parking in the alley. Vice Chair LaMastra stated that standard neighborhoods built today use up much of the lot for curb cut, so she does not see the impact to parking. She sees hardship due to existing structures and landscaping limiting the parking options. Chair Shields thinks that it does impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood and does not like that it takes a street parking space away. He appreciates the fence proposal to screen the vehicle. Stockover stated that the only place that makes sense to park in the alley is in the garage. Everything else would be too tough to navigate a vehicle. Boardmember Meyer was originally against this, but hearing comments about parking he now he will be in favor. The Applicant clarified that the new area would be 30 to 40 feet and would allow for multiple cars parked. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve ZBA210016 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good; The general purpose of the standard for which the modification requested is with the intent that the curb cut promotes the general purpose of the standard as related to safety as it takes one parking place off of the street and moves it to a driveway, minimizing the potential impacts of bikes and pedestrians in the bike lane on Wood St which would be passing the loading/unloading of pedestrians. Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Stockover, McCoy. Nays: Shields, Shuff THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA210017 Address: 320 Edwards St. Owner: Ralph Kiel Petitioner: Adona Baros Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.3(1) Project Description: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 May 13, 2021 This is a request for a Home Occupation to operate from within a detached accessory structure. The code requires Home Occupations to be conducted entirely within a dwelling. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is for sale and the petitioner is a potential buyer of the property. The code allows for Home Occupations to be in dwelling units but requires them to be in the primary building. The secondary building can be accessed from the alley. There is a curb cut that goes to the back of the property from Edwards St. The accessory building has not been approved as a dwelling unit, only habitable space. Home Occupation licenses have standards. It is issued to the resident and the resident must live on the property. There are also hours of operation. The petitioner is only seeking a variance to operate from the accessory building. The nature of the occupation would be a hair salon. Chair Shields asked whether the variance is transferred with the sale of the property. Beals noted that the variance does transfer. Boardmember Shuff asked whether the structure would need to go through the Development Review process if it changed to a dwelling. Beals stated that the structure is approved as habitable space. If there was a desire to change to a dwelling unit, it would need to go through Development Review. Boardmember Stockover and Vice Chair LaMatera asked about parking requirements. Beals read from the code which stated that Home Occupations must provide adequate parking, but he noted that it is not required that clients park in those spaces. They can park in any public area. The Home Occupation application process requires the applicant to explain how their business practices work. If they change, the license can be revoked. The request is looking at whether it can operate from the accessory building. It could influence the Boards decision whether there are parking concerns. Council Havelda added that Home Occupation is found in code section 3.83 and does talk about the parking in subsection 8 and a licensing component in subsection 11. It was clarified that the licensing procedure would look at the parking. Approval can be conditioned based on the licensing. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Adona Baros, 2726 Park Lake Ct addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal heard remotely. She knows that there is history with this property. She spoke with several adjacent neighbors and the neighbors did not have concerns. The main concern with neighbors is that it is not used as a dwelling. Only half will be used for a business. She confirmed there is parking for one large or two small cars. She intends to extend the driveway all the way back for additional parking. She would work within the hours allowed in the Home Occupancy license. Audience Participation: Ellen Oddley, 318 Edwards St, addressed the Board. She did not speak to the applicant. She sent in a letter of objection. A lot has been colored by the past with numerous violations. She is aware that this has nothing to do with the applicant but is concerned due to the history. The building has impacts to her privacy. She is concerned about the noise and traffic. She thinks the building should only be used as a garage. Kris Dunlap, 314 Edwards St, addressed the Board. She has the same concerns as Ellen. The main concern is that if the variance is approved and the property is sold, it could potentially have a future business which is not ideal. Parking is also a concern. Beals read additional correspondence which was received from John Jones. The applicant noted that she did stop by Ms. Oddley’s house. She learned of some of her concerns. She wanted to work with Ms.Oddley to put up a privacy fence. She wants to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood by utilizing the back unit as her business. Council Havelda wanted to clarify some parts of the code. The comments regarding the accessory building being habitable space – the decision has already been made. The Home Occupation license is not transferrable. It is tied to the individual. Tara Schumacher, 321 Garfield St, addressed the board. She shares the concerns of other neighbors given the history of the property. She appreciated that the applicant reached out to neighbors and believes that the applicant will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 May 13, 2021 Ellen Oddley addressed the board again and believes this conversation has been productive. She is less concerned after hearing the discussion. Board Discussion: Boardmember Shuff appreciated the comments from the neighbors. He thinks the Board needs to focus on the current proposal and not history. This comes down to parking for him. He thinks the driveway needs to be extended as a condition. Vice Chair LaMastra agreed that the concerns seem to be with past behavior at the property. She feels comfortable approving this. Boardmember Stockover believes the parking will not be an issue during the day during the business hours. He does not believe noise will be an issue with a salon. He will be in support. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve ZBA210017 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use code except in a nominal or inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as stated in section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the salon is allowed as a home occupation, the accessory structure has existed since 1920, the primary use of the property will remain a residence, the owner will reside at the residence in the primary building and contingent that Adona Baros is able to purchase the property at 321 Edwards St. Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Shields, McCoy and Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. 5. APPEAL ZBA210018 Address: 346 N. Loomis Ave Owner/Petitioner: Benjamin Hollingsworth Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1), 3.8.11(C)(2), 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum rear fence height of 6 feet by 2 feet for a maximum height of 8 feet, and to exceed the front maximum of 4 feet by 1.58 feet for a maximum of 5.58 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the code requires a fence can be 6 feet in height in the back of the primary building and 4 feet in the front of the primary building. The fence was erected without a building permit or variance request and this is an attempt to rectify the situation. The fence is of varying height around the property. There are some grade changes happening in the adjacent properties. There is landscaping next to the fence to help obscure it. Applicant Presentation: Applicant,Benjamin Hollingsworth, 346 N Loomis Ave., addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal held remotely. There is significant city traffic noise from adjacent city buildings. The building was built as a modern farmhouse. It sits higher than adjacent homes. He reviewed the pictures of the property. Boardmember Stockover wanted to note for the record that he missed about 5 minutes of the presentation. It was agreed that this was included in the material sent to the Board and that there was no need to recuse himself. Audience Participation: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 May 13, 2021 Kenneth Nelson, 618 Cherry St, addressed the Board. He was able to see the before/after project and thinks that the fence compliments the structure and ties in well with the height of the house. If it was shorter it would look awkward. The fence is a good barrier due to the traffic on the street. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover thinks it is a great looking fence. He does not think the arguments and reasoning for it are applicable. This was a pre-existing situation. Vice Chair LaMastra always struggles with the projects which were already done before proper variances were granted. On the Cherry side, she doesn’t see a big impact due to the hedges. She has concerns if the hedges are not maintained there could be exposure. Chair Shields is leaning toward Staff findings. Applicant Hollingsworth stated that a drip system was installed to maintain the hedges. LaMastra added that people have been living in these neighborhoods for generations and others are large newly constructed homes. The tall fences take away from the community feel of the neighborhood. Boardmember Meyer wondered if the hedge is thick enough, why was there a need for a fence? He is concerned that the fence is shading the plants. Stockover wanted to come to a compromise that is easy to interpret and manage. He had questions about the top rail. He wanted to know if two layers could be taken off the top of the front yard fence on the south side. He feels the rear yard is fine and inconsequential. LaMastra believes that the part of the fence which is not screened is the most impactful to the public. Shuff agrees with LaMastra. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve with condition ZBA210018 with the following findings: The granting of the modification as standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the proposal as submitted (with conditions) will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use code except in a nominal or inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as stated in section 1.2.2 with the following conditions: the fence comes down in segments in order to conserve labor and materials and keep it symmetrical. Along the north wall, the highest wall will come down two boards from the front of the structure to the east end of the wall and the fence between the property and the house to the south will come down 3 boards to the front of the house. It was clarified by the applicant that the boards are 1x6. Yeas: LaMastra, Meyer, Stockover, Shields, McCoy. Nays: Shuff THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED with Condition  OTHER BUSINESS Beals announced that the Zoning Board of Appeals name will be changing to the Land Use Review Commission. The new council liaison is Shirley Peel.  ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 1:02 pm Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 May 13, 2021 Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning