Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 08/12/2021 Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 2021 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members except Meyer were present. McCoy was present but joined after the roll call.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Stockover to approve the July 8, 2021, Minutes. (Minutes were approved with condition that edits be made to remove Commission member Shuff’s name from voting records.) The motion was adopted unanimously, with Stockover, Shuff and LaMastra abstaining.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) Beals introduced Councilwoman Shirley Peel, the new Council Liaison.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210029 –APPROVED with Condition Address: 511 Whedbee St. Owner: Joshua and Alaina Belanger Petitioner: Allen Curtis Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for a variance for a new carport to encroach 3.83 feet into the 5-foot side yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the location of the property in relation to the neighborhood. Most vehicle storage in this area are behind the building LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 August 12, 2021 and accessed along the alleys. There is a master bedroom being built which has proper permitting and is not a part of consideration for this variance. Applicant Presentation: Applicants, Joshua and Alaina Belanger, 511 Whedbee St, and Allen Curtis, 33 Eagles Nest Ct, Livermore, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. Mr. Curtis stated that the existing detached garage is relatively non-usable. It is old and not safe. Access to it would create a long alley way. Access to the kitchen area would be far for exiting car and getting into the house. They are interested in maintaining neighborhood character and believe that their design meets this goal. Moving the carport to the north would block window wells and there might be a safety hazard. Mrs. Belanger added that there is a large pine tree which covers the driveway and drops sap daily on to the cars. There is a bus stop in front of the house which eliminates the option of street parking. Chair Shields asked about drainage and how it would be addressed. Curtis answered that a gutter system and downspout would be used. It would be coming down from the southeast corner. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the justification of the equal/better reasoning used in the application. Mr. Curtis stated that the 5-foot setback negates the use of the area. Commission member Lawton asked whether meeting the setback would mean that there wouldn’t be a proper cover for the carport. Mr. Allen stated that there is not enough room to put a vehicle safely without major alterations to the south part of the existing building. LaMastra asked about coverings for the window wells and whether this has been explored as an option. Mr. Curtis noted this had not been explored but believes it may be a safety hazard and would negate any future usage of the basement. Commission member Shuff commented that the south edge of the carport might be exceeding the roof projections in the code. LaMastra asked whether anything was explored regarding other types of covers which would not require extensions into the setback. Mr. Allen noted that there would be a great cost to this. Shields asked about dimensions. Mr. Curtis stated that clearance between columns would be approximately 11 feet. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Vice Chair LaMastra questioned whether the columns need to be so far apart. Commission member Stockover doesn’t see a negative impact since parking would not be altered. Concreting the driveway to the alley would create more water runoff. His main concern would be water runoff. Commission member Shuff thinks the design is nice, but he feels the columns and the overhanging roof are too close. He thinks there are other ways to work around to reduce the challenges. He believes there will be an impact to the neighbor. Chair Shields agrees with Shuff that the biggest issue is the proximity to the property line. Without a drainage plan, it is hard to know where the water will run off. An alternative might be to move the south end columns. LaMastra is concerned that the structure is more oversized than it needs to be with regards to the level of encroachment. There can be reduction to the columns and driveway ribbons. Commission member Lawton also believes that there are other alternatives that can be explored. Stockover asked whether narrowing the columns would look better than the proposed plan. He asked whether a motion could be made with conditions for drainage plans. Mr. Allen stated that adjustment columns is feasible and asked whether two feet would be sufficient. He is hesitant about attaching the columns to the structure since it is a brick house. Stockover appreciates that the homeowners want to maintain the character of the neighborhood and appreciates that these are homeowners who want to improve their house. He is concerned that this is micromanagement. LaMastra agrees with Stockover but stated that it should be looked at through the lens of the justification sought. Impacts to others need to be considered as well. The neighbor to the south is not comfortable and this needs to be taken into consideration. Shuff thinks this can be approved with conditions based on what the board is comfortable with in regard to roof and column setbacks. Drainage issues can also be addressed in the conditions. Shields agrees and would be on board with the roof overhang being 30” from the property line. There was discussion regarding the appropriate dimensions. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to APPROVE WITH CONDITON Land Use Review Commission Page 3 August 12, 2021 ZBA210029 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public good, and the general purpose of the standard for which the modification request is being met for the following reasons: Historically, there is a curb cut on to Whedbee that has been there for a significant number of years, there is a bus stop taking away street parking with the following conditions: the roof line be approved with a 30” roof line and set back from the property line, the columns are moved a 1’4” with the roof line to accommodate an overhang, drainage plan for that roof would be provided and approved before a building permit is issued. Yeas: Stockover, Shuff, LaMastra Shields, McCoy and Lawton. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED; THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. * a break was taken at 9:44 AM. The hearing resumed at 9:49 AM. Roll call was taken, and all members were present. * 2. APPEAL ZBA210030 - APPROVED Address: 1606 Burlington Ct. Owner: Nick Berger Petitioner: Tad Bjorlie. Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c)) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow a deck to encroach 3 feet into the required 15-foot setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is on a cul-de sac. The deck would be encroaching the rear setback. The deck would be an open deck. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Nick and Bria Berger, 1606 Burlington Ct and Tad Bjorlie, 1448 Antero Dr, Loveland addressed the board and agreed to the remote proceedings. Mr. Bjorlie stated that the deck is only two feet off the ground and would not be affecting anyone else. LaMastra asked about the deck depth dimension and the purpose. Mr. Berger responded that they were looking for more outdoor space. Audience Participation: Paul and Theresa Gardzinski, 1677 Shenandoah Circle, addressed the board. They are the neighbors to the back. They asked about the future and whether the deck could be enclosed in the future. Beals stated that another variance would need to be approved for the enclosure. Beals stated that he can’t speak to whether this would be approved by the commission. Mrs Gardzinski did not understand why the applicants were not taking more advantage of the width instead of going so deep into the setback. She was more concerned about future neighbors. She had concerns about the age of the landscaping and whether it would be kept for privacy. Bria Berger answered that it is not their intent to add anything additional. On the left-hand side of the deck there is a window on the ground. This is one reason why they are not building in the direction. There is also a window well in the way which prevents them from increasing the width. Mr Bjorlie stated that they are making the width 20 ft due to the length of beams available. Commission member Stockover asked about the height of the deck with the slope. Mr Bjorlie answered it would be about 2 ft. Stockover asked about the height of the fence. Ms Berger noted it was a 6-foot fence. Vice Chair LaMastra asked again about the need for a 16 ft deck. Is there a constraint with lumber or anything else that would prevent it from meeting code. Mr Bjorlie stated that the longer boards are more cost effective and efficient. The next increment down would be 14 feet. Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover thinks that lowering the deck would help with the impact to the neighbors. Mr Bjorlie stated again that he believes 3 feet does not make much of a difference from a Land Use Review Commission Page 4 August 12, 2021 privacy perspective. Chair Shields agrees that it won’t make a big difference from a privacy perspective. Commission member Lawton thinks that this increases livability and that is important. He would be in approval. He thinks that the applicants should work with the neighbors with regards to landscaping for privacy. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by LaMastra to approve ZBA210030 for the following reasons: the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good, proposed deck is not covered, the area of encroachment can be used for patio at grade level and the fence and mature landscaping in the rear yard limit the view of the proposed deck. Yeas: Shuff, LaMastra Shields, McCoy and Lawton. Nays: Stockover THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA210031- APPROVED with Condition Address: 2242 Primrose Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Stacey Hogan Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building (shed) encroaching a total of 15 feet into the required 25-foot rear-yard setback and encroaching a total of 17 feet into the required 20-foot side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property’s location. The property was zoned U-E when it was annexed. Most of the surrounding properties are large acre lots. U-E usually requires at least ½ acre lot size and would allow for the greater setbacks. There is an existing shed that is assumed will be removed. Vice Chair LaMastra asked what the appropriate zone might be. Beals suspects it would be R-L. Setbacks are 8ft rear and 5ft side. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Stacey Hogan, 2242 Primrose Dr, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. There is a 10-foot utility easement in the back. They will be demoing the existing shed. Audience Participation: Barbara Parfet, 2231 Moffett Dr, addressed the board. She lives just north of the property. Her concern with the shed now is on the fence line and there are also some tree stumps. The fence is falling apart due to the closeness of the buildings. She believes the tree stumps need to come out and a new fence built. Kyle Hustis, 2209 Moffet Dr, addressed the board. He takes care of the irrigation and fence. He is also concerned about the current shed and the maintenance of the trees along the fence line. Ms. Hogan reiterated that the existing shed will be coming down. The new shed will be better positioned relative to the fence line and will be an improvement. Dennis Adams, 2236 Primrose Dr, addressed the board. He is in approval of the new shed and is glad that the old shed is coming down. Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover has no problem with this variance. He thinks it will be an improvement. Chair Shields is also in approval. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210031 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, Land Use Review Commission Page 5 August 12, 2021 and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: The lot sizes in Millfred Acres do not align with larger setbacks of the U- E zone district, there are other accessory structures in the neighborhood at similar setbacks as proposed and with condition that the existing shed is removed. Yeas: Stockover Shuff, LaMastra Shields, McCoy and Lawton, Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED with condition *Commission member Shuff left the meeting at 10:49 AM* 4. APPEAL ZBA210032- APPROVED with Condition Address: 3001 Sombrero Ln Owner/Petitioner: Tim Fangmeier Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1) Project Description: This is a request to operate a home occupation that offers appointment hours between 6:00am and 11:00pm. The Land Use Code states that home occupations must be operated between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting this is a corner property at the beginning of the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing an addition which will include a home office. This is not the subject of the request. The addition is meeting all code requirements. Commission member McCoy asked whether the license is tied to the property. Beals stated that the license would be particular to the applicant. Chair Shields asked about the commonality of the extension of hours to the home occupation. Beals stated it is not a common request. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Tim Fangmeier, 3001 Sombrero Ln, addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal heard remotely. He is a counselor and most of his clients have been marriage counseling or other relationship issues. He would not be looking to fill all the hours but to provide flexibility to work with clients who work. He does not believe that the extended hours will affect the neighborhood in a detrimental way. Chair Shields asked how often a late counseling session was expected. The applicant answered that he looked at history of his hours and added ½ hour to account for all possibilities. He would like to allow for flexibility with his clients. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover is concerned about clients making noise when they leave the session. Counseling is dealing with emotions which are unpredictable. He does not think the times are appropriate based on past experience he has had. Vice Chair La Mastra agrees that 11pm is way too late for businesses to be operating. The potential to have a negative impact on neighbors is unreasonable. Chair Shields agrees that 11:00pm seems too late. He thinks that 8 or 9 would be more reasonable. Commission member Lawton also agrees and wanted to see if there were other options on the hours. He thinks 8:00 should be the limit. Applicant Fangmeier understands the opposition. He does not think that his clientele would do this. He leaves space on either end of the session to allow for this before they leave. He also noted that he needs to apply every two years for the license. If there are complaints, he will not be approved. He will be motivated to comply. Stockover stated that it is not easy to control other people’s emotions. He will not be in support. *Vice Chair LaMastra left the hearing at 11:00 AM* Chair Shields thinks that 8:00 is a good compromise. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 August 12, 2021 Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210032 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted 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 with the following findings: the business is not product manufacturing, the number of clients is limited, and the property is located near the entrance of the neighborhood, and with the condition that 8:00 pm will be close of business. Yeas: Stockover, Shields, McCoy and Lawton Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED; THE ITEM WAS APPROVED with Condition. 5. APPEAL ZBA210033- APPROVED Address: 501 Edwards St. Owner: On Track Homes, LLC Petitioner: Adam Jaspers Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)2; 4.8(E)(4)) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to increase the maximum buildable floor area by 80 square feet to 2480 square feet, and to encroach 5.8 feet into the required 15-foot street side-yard setback Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that it is a corner property. This is a request for an entirely new home. It was previously owned by the adjacent church. The existing structures currently do not meet the setbacks. Staff would only be in approval of the side setback. Chair Shields clarified that the 80 sf is a floor area ratio problem Beals confirmed this. Shields asked about the intent of not allowing the overhanging front porch. Beals said his understanding is this was a standard which reinforced the character of the N-C-M zone. The overhang is found in more contemporary architecture. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Adam Jaspers, 3676 Bryant Ave, Windsor, addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal heard remotely. He tried to take the character into consideration while remaining in compliance with the code. They are working with the constraints of how the floor area is calculated. Chair Shields asked whether stairs on each level is counted as square footage. Beals confirmed this. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover wants to maintain the character of the house and doesn’t think this is an issue. He will be in support as-is. To take the overhang out would make the design awkward. Commission member Lawton agrees and likes the character element of the bump-out. Commission member McCoy also agrees that the design should stay as-is. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy to approve ZBA210033 for the following reasons: The granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good, the proposal as submitted 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 with the following findings: as per the setback, there is an additional 15 feet from the property line to the public sidewalk, the applicant has worked with City staff to bring things into compliance and have made headway, the aesthetics are in context with the neighborhood. Yeas: Stockover, Shields, McCoy and Lawton Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED; THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 August 12, 2021  OTHER BUSINESS – Beals updated the commission on the status of meeting in person. We will continue to work with City leadership to make the determination.  ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 11:53 AM Ralph Shields, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning