Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/2021 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting 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: Meeting will be held virtually 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 DECEMBER 9, 2021 8:30 AM LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Participation for this remote Land Use Review Commission meeting will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Land Use Review Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/96666210710.Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:15 a.m. on December 9, 2021. Participants should try to sign in prior to 8:30 a.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. The number to dial is +1 (346) 248 7799 or +1 (669) 900 9128, with webinar ID: 966 6621 0710. (Continued on next page) Land Use Review Commission Page 2 December 12, 2021 • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210047 Address: 1003 W Horsetooth Rd Owner/Petitioner: Greg Thornton Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Project Description: This is a request to allow a 4-foot-tall sign and a 2.92-foot-tall sign to be installed in the residential sign district that limits these signs to a maximum of 2 feet in height. The business is changing locations; the old location is not in the residential sign district and the new location is. 2. APPEAL ZBA210048 Address: 400 Jackson Ave Owner/Petitioner: Michael and Katie Rusnak Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to construct a fence along portions of the south and east property line that vary in height between 6 feet and 7 feet. Based on the slope of the property, some sections of the fence will be taller than the 6-foot maximum that is allowed for fences built in a side yard or a rear yard. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting will be available beginning at 8:15 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 8:30 a.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, the Staff Liaison needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials. 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 NOVEMBER 12, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members except La Mastra and McCoy were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Stockover to approve the October 14, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210043 – APPROVED Address: 4424 Denrose Ct. Owner: McDonald’s USA, LLC (dba Archland Property I LLC) Petitioner: Jordan Bunch Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.4(A)(2) Project Description: This is a request is for a variance which will extend the seven-year period in which a nonconforming sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits has to comply with the City's regulations. Specifically, the McDonald’s freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by Dec. 20th, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). A previous variance was granted in May of 2012, extending the compliance date by an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2015. A variance was granted again in 2015 to extend the compliance date to Dec. 20th, 2018; this request was approved, extending the compliance date to 12/20/2021. This request is to extend the compliance date for at least an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2024. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 November 12, 2021 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is at the corner of East Mulberry and SE frontage road. This McDonald’s location was annexed years ago and did have seven years to come into compliance. They have now requested an extension to allow their large free-standing sign to remain. Beals noted that some potential problems with the free- standing sign are that it is currently taller and larger than code allows. Beals described the way some adjacent properties have been annexed into City limits. One vacant lot is currently in review for development with the City. Before McDonald’s last request, a sliver of land about three years ago, began the annexation process for properties west of its boundary. That time frame is coming up and properties will begin to be annexed into the City. Public outreach efforts have begun. Beals noted that the sign in question is on NW corner of the McDonald’s parking lot, and currently rises over sixteen feet vertically. Beals presented pictures of the sign as well as sightlines in the immediate area, as well as other businesses with signs who have not begun their seven-year process to come into compliance. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Jordan Bunch, representing law firm Holland and Hart, 1800 Broadway Ste 300, Boulder CO, Todd Luther, franchisee for site, and Vanessa Williams, real estate portfolio manager for McDonald’s, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Bunch shared a PowerPoint presentation, which included some history of the sign and franchise location. The site and sign were originally constructed in 2001, prior to annexation, and at that time were in full compliance with the County. Annexation occurred in 2005, which triggered the seven-year timeframe for compliance. Extensions have since been granted. Previous LURC Boards have found that the granting of extensions to be appropriate based on the fact that it had a nominal and inconsequential effect on the surrounding area, which remains largely commercial. All previous neighborhood conditions that supported previous variances currently remain. Even if adjacent properties become annexed, they will have seven years to come into compliance, so an additional three-year extension would be appropriate. Several proximate properties currently employ large pole signs similar in size and scale to the McDonald’s sign in question. Due to recent road closures and construction along I -25, access to McDonald’s has been hindered. Without the large pole sign, the site location would be virtually invisible from I-25, which currently acts as its main access point. Bunch noted the commitment to community shown by the franchisee, stating that they own several locations throughout Fort Collins, and during the COVID-19 pandemic response, this location was able to remain open for business and did not have to let any employees go. Additionally, this property is an “island” surrounded by non- annexed properties that don’t have to comply with the same code. This creates a hardship that was not of the applicant’s own making. Todd Luther, 144 John Deere Dr, Fort Collins, CO addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Luther stated that he moved to Fort Collins in 2008 and has been a local resident since. He and his family are very invested in the town through work and school. They currently own five locations with a total of 360 employees (60 of which are at the location under review). Removal of this sign would result in a decrease of sales and tax revenue. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff stated his opinion, based on the history of previous board and existing context, that there is no issue with granting an additional extension. Annexation does take a long time, so impact on existing properties would be some ways out. Commission member Lawton stated his opinion that this sign is no different from what many other businesses, including other McDonald’s, have in terms of signage. There is time to change signage if the future if needed given the timeframe of annexation for nearby properties. Commission member Stockover stated he has no problem whatsoever with granting the extension. Stockover also stated that despite the generous donations and community work performed by the Land Use Review Commission Page 3 November 12, 2021 Luther family (which is acknowledged as being appreciated!), those elements are not within the purview of this Board when making decisions regarding variance requests. Decisions need to be made solely on the merits of the sign and surround area as it relates to current code. Chair Shields stated that the context of the surrounding neighborhoods has not significantly changed, and they do have the support of neighboring businesses. Therefore, Shields would be in support of the request. Commission member Stockover asked Beals what sign district this resides in. Beals responded the sign in currently not in the residential sign district. Stockover questioned if, as Fort Collins grows towards the highway, are we looking towards creating a highway sign district? Beals answered that as code was updated, some of that was anticipated as citizens indicated they preferred a lower sign height. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE ZBA210043 under section 2.10.4(H) to allow the variance to allow a 60-foot tall, 170 sq. ft. per-side free-standing sign to remain for another three years. This is based on the findings that the sign would not be detrimental to the public good, since there are numerous signs of the approximat e same height and size in close proximity to the McDonald’s sign, which will remain for numerous years; the neighborhood around the site is predominantly commercial, and have signs that are not up to code because they reside in the County; removal of the McDonald’s sign will have no immediate impact on the surrounding area. Therefore, the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard except 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: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210044 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 110 W Suniga Rd. Owner/Petitioner: Tucker Jordan Zoning District: C-S Code Section: 3.5.3(E) Project Description: This is a request to construct a new shed in the backyard on the property line, encroaching 8 feet into 8-foot rear setback and 5 feet into 5-foot left side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting when E Suniga went in, the road was changed to W Suniga so the roadway would have the same name as it crossed College Ave. This property is located in the C-S zone district, which allows for residential uses but is really designated to commercial services. With that, the residential uses default to the setbacks included in Art. 3, which describe an eight-foot rear setback and five-foot side setback, with no min/max floor requirements. Beals stated the original parcel has since been subdivided into two residential lots. Many of the surrounding structures were built prior to the setback requirement, so there are a lot of non -conforming structures currently in place. The applicant is proposing a shed which is next to the home, with an exterior-facing door. As proposed, the shed would follow along the existing fence line and exterior home contours. Prior to approval, staff would recommend at least a three-foot setback which is more inline with building code Land Use Review Commission Page 4 November 12, 2021 standards. That would also help prevent any runoff coming off the proposed structure from having a negative impact on neighboring properties. Applicant Presentation: Jordan Tucker, 110 W Suniga Rd, Fort Collins, CO addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Tucker provided the board with pictures of the surrounding neighborhood, indicating that there are many structures in the area that are currently non-conforming. The proposed shed would thus be in line with the current character of the neighborhood. Tucker added that when he purchased the home in 2015, there was a shed existing in the proposed location. That shed was subsequently taken down based on a requirement from the City during renovation of the carport into a home addition. The shed area represents a valuable piece of storage space that could be better utilized. Tucker additionally commented that a current neighbor’s runoff from their garage currently flows to his property. One goal of placing the proposed shed against the property line within the setback would be capture and diversion of this runoff water. Commission member Lawton asked the applicant to describe the intended use of the proposed shed structure, as well as describing what their hardship would be if setback requirements were enforced. The applicant described the shed as being used for bicycles, which are their main mode of transportation. Additionally, the shed would provide a higher degree of safety for belongings. Hardship has occurred due to loss of previous shed and the ability to safely store belongings such as bikes. Lawton asked what the effect might be if the applicant was asked to reduce shed space to accommodate a three-foot setback, for example. Tucker stated that if he were to lose three feet on a side of the shed, it becomes difficulty to maneuver and move bicycles around. A resulting shed of 6 feet by 6 feet becomes a lot less ideal to store goods. Chair Shields questioned whether the concrete pad from the previous shed is still in place. The applicant explained that a portion of the pad is still in place, but a different portion was removed during the course of renovations. Shields questioned if there was any way to increase the size of the s hed by pushing the east wall out a bit. Applicant stated this would not be possible, as it would impede an existing window. Commission member Shuff asked the applicant if the proposed roof projection shown in plan drawings has been resolved? It appears to be hanging over an adjacent property line based on drawings. The applicant indicated that the edge of the roof, even if gutter is installed, would not overhang the adjacent property, and would come up to his own property line. Drawing plans can be update d to reflect that detail. Chair Shields asked the applicant what kind of maintenance they anticipate needing to be performed in the space between the proposed new structure and existing fence. The applicant explained that in the past, they used a small, narrow rake to pull leaves and debris from the space between the shed wall and fence. The applicant was also able to work with a neighbor to access the backside of the area. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff commented the site does present some hardships based on existing lot lines. We are into the minutiae of determining how close can we get to the property line, which was the genesis for some questions regarding gutter and roof/eave overhang. Giving a foot of set-back may be a good way to provide space for roof projections, gutter, etc. though it would impact the overall size of the finished shed. Commission member Stockover stated that he would defer to the architects present to a bit. If he were the applicant, he would consider removing the fence altogether, installing a concrete pan for drainage, and tying the fence line back into the corner of the shed. A narrow metal panel could be installed in a Land Use Review Commission Page 5 November 12, 2021 way which would be removable for cleaning, mowing, etc. Stocker stated his opinion that having a small “tunnel” created between two structures is not ideal, as it creates a space for leaves and debris to collect. Stockover expressed his support for the request, assuming special attention will be paid to water/drainage mitigation and consideration of fence removal. Commission member Meyer agreed with Stockover and stated that perhaps the best solution is to terminate the fence against the corners of the shed. This would eliminate one “gross” condition wherein one wouldn’t be able to clean between the fence and the side of the shed. As far as the house is concerned, a concrete pad between the two would be ideal. Building up against the house will create more problems down the road if moisture can collect, etc. At least six inches is needed for airflow but isn’t enough for cleaning. Six inches or eighteen inches is still problematic. The homeowner will need to determine the balance between anticipated maintenance needs and usable storage space. Commission member Lawton stated he was a bit confused if there are two structures or not. Any open space created between properties may collect leaves and debris and would warrant a conversation between neighbors to address that responsibility moving forwa rd. Water mitigation needs to be thoroughly addressed considering how close to the house the shed would be. Applicant Jordan Tucker clarified on the other side of the fence, not visible in photos, there is a tree and open space. Commission member Shuff stated that it is a bit unclear where the property line is. The fence shown in photos appears to be a double fence and consumes approximately 12-18 inches of space. It may be helpful to know more about the lot line situation of that side. Applicant Jordan Tucker explained that the double fence belongs to a neighbor, and they may be amenable to removing a portion of fence to accommodate water mitigation features. A survey was performed a few years ago, and the property line pin was exposed. The double fence is within inches of the surveyed line. Chair Shields stated he is ok with the shed being as close to the property line as possible, if there are not projections coming off the roof line. Do we give it a foot, or six inches of spac ing? This would accommodate water runoff and gutter, etc. Do we need a condition? Commission member Shuff agrees that some amount of space would need to be maintained to keep the ability to clean, clear, and mitigate the space between shed and home. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210044. The variance request is approved with the condition that a minimum 1- foot setback be maintained between the west side of the property and shed wall to allow for drainage via surface and/or gutter of the applicant’s choice. Additionally, there are to be no projections on the north side that extend beyond the property line. This finding is based on staff reports as well as staff and applicant presentations. Additionally, the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the 2615 sq ft parcel is small in size, and the square shape of the lot combined with the size of the existing primary building limit the placement of a new structure; other residential properties in the are not in compliance in side- and rear-yard setbacks. 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. Noah Beals asked for clarification regarding the Motion made by Shuff. Beals asked if the 1-foot setback for the wall on the west was intended to allow for roof overhang up to zero inches, with no condition on the north side. Shuff clarified the motion by stating that on the north side, there can’t be any projections beyond the property line. Chair Shields asked the Board for any additional comment; there were no comments offered. Yeas: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Land Use Review Commission Page 6 November 12, 2021 *Commission member Stockover requested a five-minute break. Chair Shields granted a five-minute break at 9:38am. The meeting was resumed at 9:46m.* 3. APPEAL ZBA210045 – APPROVED Address: 903 W Mountain Ave. Owner: S & S 230 LLC Petitioner: Tara Palmer Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a variance request for an 8-foot-tall fence along the west property line, resulting in fence totaling 61 feet long and 8 feet tall in both sides’ 5-foot side setbacks (the fence runs east and west across the width of the lot in middle rear yard). Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located near the corner of W Mountain and S Washington. The maximum fence height allowed in the rear under code is 6 feet. The fence that has been installed is 8 feet tall. A fence in the required setback area must be 6 feet or less. The request covers the span which is in the setback area. The 8- foot fence is occurring between the primary structure and an ADU that is currently under construction. The 8-foot fence portions are visible from the front of the home looking towards the rear of the property. Commission member Meyer asks Beals if this is a case of the applicant having built something out of code and then asking for forgiveness afterwards. Beals responded that yes, that was the case. Beals explained that any fence over 6 feet requires a building permit to ensure that it meets wind and snow loads. If the variance is approved, the applicant will need to pull a building permit. Commission member Lawton asked if the fence was attached to another structure, as depicted in one of the photos. Beals stated that it appears the fence was up against the house, but there may be a post between and connect to the two. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Tara Palmer, 901 W Mountain Ave, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Palmer clarified that the green building and shorter fence shown in presentation photos belongs to their neighbor. Their fence buts up against that fence but is not physically connected to it. The 8-foot fence has been in place for approximately two years since the applicant purchased the property. The applicant stated their neighbor is totally okay with the fence; he owns a school bus and other mechanical projects, and most windows on his house are above the 6- foot fence line. The 8-foot fence provides a bit of privacy between the adjacent neighbors’ homes. The applicant stated that they own multiple properties in the area, including 901 W Mountain, 903 W Mountain, and 109 S Washington. Palmer explained all their fence lines that line city property is maintained at a 6-foot height. Fence lines between structures are now 8-feet. Once the garage is completed in the alleyway, the entire backyard will not be visible from the alley. That fence will be 6 feet. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover stated his opinion that this seems to be a reasonable request, considering the location of the fence behind the house and in the back of the alley. The neighborhood is mature and already includes a high degree of screening. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 November 12, 2021 Chair Shields agreed with the comments made by Stockover. Additionally, he observed 1) the fence was already in place prior to the applicant owning the property, 2) we have not received any opposition from adjacent neighbor to the west. Because of the reasons, Shields is in favor of supporting the variance request. Commission member Lawton agreed with the previous comments made by Stockover and Shields and commented that because the fence next to the garage will be reinstalled, only the adjacent neighbor will really see the 8-foot fence. It is basically invisible to everyone else. Because of these reasons, Lawton would support the granting of the variance. Commission member Meyer commented that it would help if the neighbor had provided a letter of support to add to the documentation, but they also haven’t shown up to speak in opposition of the request. Meyer agreed with the comments made by Stockover, in that the mature neighborhood already contains similar elements, and this fence will not stand out. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA21004 5 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good. The extended fence height does not run the full length of the property line, and landscaping along the property line may exceed such heights as well. Therefore, the variance request as submitted will not diverge from the standard except 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: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA210046 – APPROVED Address: 119 N Shields St. Owner/Petitioner: Julie Mote Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4)(a) Project Description: This is a request to increase the maximum wall height at the North side of the addition to 22.28 feet, the maximum height allowed is 14 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property has come forward previously with a request to build an accessory building in the backyard. The current request is regarding an addition to the primary residence. The requested addition would occur on the rear of the residence. Based on the current plans, the setback requirement is not being met based on wall height. The issue is in this zone district, we have solar access preservation to the north. Wall heights are limited at 14 feet at the minimum setback of five feet. If a taller wall height is desired, setback must be increased from the north side. This request proposed to encroach at that setback level. As seen in the elevation drawings, the only element that is not meeting the required wall height are the faces of the second story dormers, which are aligned flush with the plane of the first story walls. The wall below is meeting the 14-foot wall height, but the dormers extend that wall height to 22- plus feet. Chair Shields asked if the lower eave breaks up the wall height. Beals clarified that no, technically that element does not break up the wall height. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Julie Mote, 119 N Shields St., addressed the board and agreed to hold t he hearing remotely. Mote explained that although their lot is very long, it is also very narrow. Per their engineer, Gary Weeks, they were told that they needed to go beyond the footprint of their existing house to maintain Land Use Review Commission Page 8 November 12, 2021 the structural integrity of the existing brick home. Neighbors to the north are very aware of what is being proposed and are ok with it. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer commented that the request seems very reasonable and is very nominal and inconsequential. The actual area of shadow that would be created would hardly create a damaging shade scenario for potential solar gains. There is a potential in the future that adja cent properties may be modified but given the fact that the request only includes two dormers, it seems inconsequential. Commission member Shuff agreed with the comments made by Meyer and added one could actually put hip roofs on the dormer and thus comply with roof form and negate the need for wall-based setback. Shuff does not have any issues supporting the request. Commission member Lawton added his support for the request, noting that the dormers are more of a technicality than anything else. This wouldn’t really have any impact on that area and is a pretty good plan. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA21004 6 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good. The solar access is maintained for the majority of the north property line, and the increase in wall is limited to a 16-foot length of the property line. Therefore, the variance request as submitted will not diverge from the standard except 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: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS Noah Beals announced that we do have variances for next month so plan to meet. Also, our December meeting will be our last with Commissioners Shields and Stockover, as they are term limited. Come January, please be thinking about who would be interested in serving as Chair and Vice Chair. Because we have two vacancies, we have been reviewing applications but have only received one. Please let Beals know if you have anyone who may be interested. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:15am Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 9, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210047 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1003 W Horsetooth Rd. Owner/Petitioner: Greg Thornton Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Variance Request: This is a request to allow a 3-foot-tall sign and a 2.92-foot-tall sign to be installed in the residential sign district that limits these signs to a maximum of 2 feet in height. The business is changing locations; the old location is not in the residential sign district and the new location is. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1978 part of the West Horsetooth annexation. Later in 1995 it received approval for a mixed-use development that included seven different pad sites. The mix of uses included office, restaurant, retail, bank, and residential. This development is named the Poudre Valley Plaza. There is currently a development review application being processed for the remaining pad site. This proposed project includes residential uses. The residential sign district is intended to limit the impacts of signs on residential uses. This is done by reducing the allowable heights and sizes of signs within the district. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The north sign increased height is limited to only certain letters of the sign • The south sign increased height is for the sign background • The background is semi-transparent and is a color that blends in with the wall behind it. Therefore, 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. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210047. Wall Sign South ElevationPro Velo 28913 DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes Wall Sign South ElevationPro Velo 28913 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesFace ViewSCALE: 1-1/2" = 1' 0" • For PresentationAExisting Channel Letter Sign from client's previous location, Face Lit with LEDs, Mounted to existing Support Frame9 ft - 1 in8 ft - 4 in3 ft - 0 in4 ft - 0 in25 sq ft21.771 in 21.166 in ALL THE LETTERS ON THIS ARE UNDER THE 24" RESTRICTION. THE BACKGROUNDIS SEMI TRANSPARENT$1'6+28/'17%(,1&/8'(',129(5$//+(,*+7. Wall Sign North ElevationPro Velo 28913 DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes Wall Sign North ElevationPro Velo 28913 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesFace ViewExisting Channel Letter Sign from client's previous location, Face Lit with LEDs, Individually-MountedSCALE: 1" = 1' 0" • For PresentationB24.5 Sq Ft20 1/4"25 5/8"25"these sections of the sign are nominal and inconsequential graphic placement diagramPro Velo 28913 DESIGNER: Kevin BowesNorth Wall SignSouth Wall Sign 1 Rob Bianchetto From:Zoning Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 8:40 AM To:proVelo Bicycles; Zoning Cc:Randy Lerich Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: ProVelo sign relocation Hello Greg,    I was able to get into the system and can verify that the address is located in a convenience shopping center, so the  maximum wall sign height is going to be 2’. You have the option to request a variance to put up a taller sign in that area.     The request for a variance goes before the Land Use Review Commission (previously the Zoning Board of Appeals), who  meet on a monthly basis. The hearings are public and decisions are granted on the spot once cases are heard. Approval  is not guaranteed, though a detailed application is appreciated. Applications are due by 3pm on the 2nd Tuesday of the  month prior. There is a $25 application fee, as well as $0.75 per APO address affected, which will be collected after you  submit your application. Your variance application and supporting documentation can be emailed to zoning@fcgov.com.     Next Deadline: 3pm,  November 9th for attendance at December 9th hearing     Here is the link to the variance application and guidelines:  https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/zoning‐variance‐guidelines.pdf?1582667393     Let me know if you have any questions on the process.    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROB BIANCHETTO Senior Zoning Inspector City of Fort Collins   From: proVelo Bicycles <greg@provelobikes.com>   Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 2:58 PM  To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>  Cc: Randy Lerich <randy@myactionsigns.com>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ProVelo sign relocation    Hello Rob, I'm the owner of proVelo and am curious if there is some way this issue can be resolved? I have a lot invested in these signs and really don't want to replace them over what appears to be a minor issue. In general they are great quality, attractive signs and appear to be very close to compliant. It seems like it would be a huge waste of resources to essentially throw away my current signs, not to mention the financial burden it would put on my business to replace them. As you are aware, the last couple of years have been difficult due to the Corona virus and to add insult to injury, to avoid a long drawn out legal battle, I have been forced to move my business to this new location. The expense to move my business is enough of a burden without the potential added expense of replacing my signs. 2 Is there anything I can do to get my current signs approved for this location? Thank you, Greg Thornton  proVelo Bicycles  970‐204‐9935    Sometimes it is about the bike.      On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:27 AM Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote:  Hi Randy,     The system we use to track if an address is classified as a convenience shopping center is currently down, so I can’t  confirm what we would consider it; I’ll have to get back to you on that.     Assuming it is a convenience shopping center where the max height is 2’, there is no wiggle room. Both signs would  have to be reduced so that no part of the sign structure is over 2’ tall.     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROB BIANCHETTO Senior Zoning Inspector  City of Fort Collins      From: Randy Lerich <randy@myactionsigns.com>   Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:25 AM  To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>  Cc: proVelo Bicycles <greg@provelobikes.com>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] ProVelo sign relocation     Hi zoning staff‐     Our client Greg Thornton who owns Pro Velo bikes is relocating to 1003 West Horsetooth. He currently is in a General  commercial zone and now will be in the neighborhood sign district which I understand is classified as convenience  3 shopping center. Could you please review our initial sign drawings for the new location? These signs pictured are from  his current location, and it is our desire to repurpose these if possible. Here are my questions:     1. The North sign has three letters that exceed the 24” restriction although the general letter height is below the  24” . Will this be permissible in this case?   2. The South sign letter heights are all permissible, yet the background is over the 24” height. When this was  originally created our goal was to make this as transparent as possible to let light through and not be a “sign  element” so to speak .      Please let us know what your initial position is on this one.      Thank you     Kind Regards                Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 9, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210047 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 400 Jackson Ave Owner/Petitioner: Michael and Katie Rusnak Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Variance Request: This is a request to construct a fence along portions of the south and east property line that vary in height between 6 feet and 7 feet. Based on the slope of the property, some sections of the fence will be taller than the 6-foot maximum that is allowed for fences built in a side yard or a rear yard. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City and platted in 1907. The original residential structure was built in 1923. It was demolished in 2009 and a new home was completed in in 2011. The original platted lots on the corner of this block have been reconfigured through new parcel lines. The rear property line is considered a side property line for the abutting neighbor. This results in a 15-foot setback for the subject property and a 5-foot setback for the abutting neighbor. The south property is considered a side property line for both the subject property and the abutting neighbor. However, the abutting neighbor’s home is non-conforming as it encroaches into the setback. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The buildings on the abutting property to the east has 5-foot setback and not the same 15-foot setback. • The building to the south is non-conforming and encroaches into the 5-foot setback. • Landscaping along the property may exceed such heights. 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. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210048. Variance Request Narrative for 400 Jackson Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Submitted Tuesday November 9th, 2021 The purpose of this variance request to ask permission to construct/maintain a privacy fence of greater than 6 feet around our backyard. The exact height of this fence varies with the slope of our backyard, but in no portion should exceed 7 feet. In some areas of the yard the fence is actually well under 6 feet and even closer to 5 feet. The two fence lines that would exceed 6 feet most significantly run only between private properties, with little to no visibility from public streets. These portions are highlighted in the attached site plan for our lot. Our desire to have a privacy fence greater that 6 feet is based on the following rationale: 1. The close proximity of our home and yard to our neighbors 2. The very close proximity of our neighbors houses and other structures to the property line 3. The fact that we have a backyard swimming pool which increases the need for a sight and sound barrier 4. The fact that the grade of our yard slopes significantly, with the lowest portion along the rear/ east property line creating a fence that naturally gets taller as it runs towards the rear of the lot, while visually feeling shorter because the grade there is lower. Our home is at 400 Jackson Avenue, at the corner of Jackson Avenue and Magnolia Street. This was once a very large corner lot that was subdivided by our builder into three lots which he sold and built homes on between 2005 and 2010. We have provided the plot plan for this subdivision for your reference. We have labelled the plot plan as follows: Our home at 400 Jackson Ave = Lot A Our neighbors to the east at 1327 W. Magnolia Street = Lot B Our neighbors to the south at 404 Jackson Ave = Lot C In 2020, we began a backyard renovation which included an in-ground swimming pool. As part of that project, we are replacing the fencing around our property, both for added privacy and for a more attractive appearance. The pre-existing fencing along both the east and south property lines had been installed by our neighbors, or previous home owners. These fences were quite weathered and showing their 15 year age. We reached out to both neighbors offering to replace these stretches of fence with a new high-quality custom built fence featuring metal posts, heavy 2x6 cedar planks, and decorative perforated panels. We are paying for 100% of the cost of the new fence and the cost to remove the old fencing. We provided a detailed explanation of the fence design along with inspiration photos and a drawing from the landscape designer via email. We discussed the fence at length with our neighbors and truly feel we have gone above and beyond to be respectful of them, include them in this process, and coordinate installation. It is also our belief that they benefit from the new fence as it is superior in quality and design to the pre-existing fencing and being provided to them at no cost. Additionally, they will have the same benefits we seek of added privacy, sound buffering, and a more attractive view. Because the height of the new fence exceeds 6 feet in some portions of the yard, we are requesting this variance. We did not apply for this variance sooner because we were actually not aware of the limits on fence heights as large portions of the existing fence were already above 6 feet. There are also many fences in our area that exceed 6 feet, so it honestly had not occurred to us. Unfortunately, our landscape contractor did not make us aware of these rules either. Once we became aware of these guidelines, we stopped construction of the fence pending the requested variance. After reviewing the justifications that can serve as reasons for a variance, we feel we can actually provide justifications in all three categories. The information below details our justifications under each of these criteria. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration of this application. We feel this fence truly improves our experience in our home without creating a detriment to the public good, and we hope you will agree. EQUALLY WELL OR BETTER: The existing fence we replaced on the south border of our property between our home and 402 Jackson Avenue (LOT C) was the roughly the same height as the new fence we have constructed. As shown in the photos provided, the old fence with the lattice is actually taller than the new fence in some portions. That is the same fencing that previously ran between our lot and LOT C. This old fence also grew in height as it ran along the south border of our property between our lot and LOT C as the new fence does. This occurs naturally with the grade of the yard getting lower toward the east/rear of our lots. We simply maintained that existing height, and would like to continue that height along the east length as well. The taller fence with the lattice also runs along the east property line of both LOTS B and C, as shown in the photos provided. We would like to continue this height along the full eastern edge of our backyard between our lot and LOT B. If this is not done, there is an odd drop in height along this one portion of the yard. As shown in the photos, the unfinished stretch of fence currently between our yard and LOT B is obviously lower than the fence extending along the rest of their property to the the south by their garage and between our yard and LOT C. Keeping this fence at the uniform taller height would be more visually pleasing and would provide all neighbors with added privacy. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY: The features of our property that we would like you to consider are the grade of our backyard and the orientation of our lot to our neighbors yards, specifically our neighbors to the east (LOT B). I will first address the grade. We did not realize just how sloped the grade of our yard was until the pool was installed. Our lot slopes down quite dramatically from the back of our home to the rear/ east property line. Our neighbors to the east (LOT B) mentioned that the grading was an issue even before our home was built. Because the rear of the lot sits lower than the house, it is necessary to have the fence in the east portion of the yard taller if the top of the fence is to remain level around the yard. Where the fence faces west towards Jackson Avenue, it is just above 5 feet. However as it runs east between our yard and LOT C, the fence height increases in order to maintain a level upper border. As stated previously, this was the case with the previous fence and we would like to continue that height across the rear/east fence line between our home and LOT B. So, we are simply asking to continue this existing and uniform upper border, rather than having the odd step-down as shown in the photos. Next, I will address the orientation of our yard to our neighbors home. When the original lot was divided, it was done in such a way that the rear of our property abuts the side of LOT B. LOT B runs behind the entire length of the rear of our lot and a portion of LOT C. A plot plan showing this configuration has been provided. When the owners of LOT B built their home, they chose a layout such that the house, a detached garage, and a covered breezeway connecting those two building all run along our shared property line. Because this border is the side of their property, they were only required to have a 5 foot setback off the property line and were allowed to have some structures, such as the roof overhangs, extent even closer. This creates what is in essence a solid wall of building structure 5 feet from our rear fence line. While this technically does not violate code, it does create a uniquely unfortunate situation for the owners of LOT A and LOT C. It is the rear of our lots but the side of LOT B, so the smaller 5 foot setback applies versus a 15 foot setback for a rear property line. This creates an unattractively close-up view of the side of their home and garage for their neighbors, as well as an uncomfortable lack of privacy. We have attached several photos to illustrate this view. As I look out my kitchen windows or back door, I am staring at the side of the three structures described above. There is virtually no open space in that sightline to the east where there is not a building. What we see is a big wall of stucco and everything installed on the side of their home. This includes their electric meter, black cable wires, a large overhanging balcony, and a shelving unit on which they keep various items including shoes, a crock pot, large cooking pots, and their recycling bin. At times there are other items here such as coolers, a pet carrier, bags of trash, brooms, etc. Because this is the side of their home and an access path to their garage, this probably seems like a natural place for these items. In this location these items are out of sight to them and not visible from their windows or back porch. Unfortunately because their lot sits directly behind ours, this is not only the view from our backyard but even from inside our house. We can also see directly into their home through their side window and assume they can also see directly into our rear windows and patio door. Of course they are frequently passing from their backdoor to their garage, and it is awkward to be in the direct sight line or one another, particularly in what should be a more private space. It’s one thing to be eye to eye with neighbors in your driveway or front yard, but another thing to make eye contact from your back porch or even inside your home. As mentioned above, we recently added a pool to our backyard. This addition creates even more of desire for privacy, a feeling of visual separation, and a sound barrier. We have three children, including a teenage daughter. It is uncomfortable for all of us to be outside in swimsuits in plain sight of our neighbors. I also constantly feel concerned that our children and guests are being loud or bothering the neighbors. If the rear of our property abutted the alley or the rear of another lot, we would not be having these concerns. It is the unique and unfortunate positioning of our lots and homes that is creating this issue of privacy and noise. The photos demonstrate how just increasing the eastern fence line by a matter of inches to the height of the adjoining fences would help to create more of a visual barrier. NOMINAL AND INCONSEQUENTIAL DIVERGENCE FROM CODE: It is our belief that the height of the new fence violates the building code minimally and in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. The fence height is not excessively tall and is very similar to others in the area. Living in a more urban area with busy streets, high speed traffic, and close proximity to neighbors, it has been our observation that many fences in the area are above the 6 foot guideline. As mentioned previously, the fence height ranges with the slope of the lot with the some portions well under 6 feet and some portions above. Those portions above 6 feet are not adjacent to neighborhood streets or sidewalks, and are actually several feet away from public spaces. These slight variances above 6 feet would be inconsequential when considering the context of the neighborhood.