Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 08/11/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Nathanial Coffman Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Commission members Shuff, Meyer, Coffman and Vogel were present; members La Mastra, Lawton, and McCoy were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the July 21, 2022 Regular Hearing Minutes and the July 1 Special Meeting Minutes. The motion was adopted; Commission members Coffman and Vogel voted to abstain. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220023 Address: 524 Stover St. Owner/Petitioner: Reyes Sarmiento Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8.11(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.8(D)(6) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the total floor area square footage allowed on the lot by 1,202 square feet. The maximum permitted is 3,652 square feet. Also, for the accessory building to have a footprint of 832 square feet; the maximum allowed is 600 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Stover St. north of E. Myrtle. Beals explained the request is to build a garage on the back-half of the property. The proposed garage would be a two-car structure with attached carport. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 August 11, 2022 Prior to some 2014 Code changes, the applicant applied for and received a building permit to complete the garage. Circumstances led to the garage not being completed, though the concrete slab was poured. A land use change occurred at the time of permit issuance that would have prevented the permit from being issued, hence why the variance request has been made today. Beals stated that the amount of floor space in the existing home currently is more than the allowable maximum based on the total size of the lot. In this sub-district, there is both a maximum allowable square footage for the lot, as well as a maximum amount that can be placed in the rear-half of the lot. In this case, the rear-half square footage is ok, but the overall square footage is over allowable maximum. One of the code changes that applies today is how square footage is defined. In a primary building, it is everything from outside wall to outside wall, with the exception of space below-grade. When the permit for the garage was originally requested, there was another permit to finish an attic space; that finished space started to count against the allowable maximum square footage as well. Also, there has been a change to how we define floor area for accessory buildings. The intent of the code is to keep accessory buildings subordinate to primary buildings, as well as to prevent looming structures in rear-yards over neighbors’ yards. Beals also clarified that floor area includes carport areas. The proposed garage structure exceeds the allowable maximum floor area. Continuing, Beals presented elevations drawings of the garage, noting it is a single-story structure that meets eave height requirements as well as setback requirements as proposed. The only requirement not being met is the 600 square-foot maximum for accessory building as well as the maximum allowable floor area for the lot. Beals presented pictures of the front and rear of the lot, noting the location of the proposed garage and the existing concrete slab. Beals also noted that there are several existing garages and accessory buildings along the alley. Vice-Chair Shuff asked Beals if it was a recent change to count carports against the allowable maximum of floor space? Beals responded that change to code occurred sometime between the 2014 updates and those made around 2018. Application Presentation: Applicant Reyes Sarmiento, 524 Stover St. addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Sarmiento explained that in the middle of the garage project, his daughter tore her ACL twice during high school, which took resource and attention away from completion of the garage. Recent code changes have prevented any additional changes to the proposed structure, such as adding a second story, and Sarmiento is now asking for a variance simply to complete the garage and carport that were started in 2014. Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer commented on first sight it does appear to be a significant increase in square footage; however, considering the timeline and the stalled construction, along with subsequent changes in code it seems reasonable to allow this project to move forward. Meyer stated his support of the variance request. Commission member Coffman agreed with the statements offered by Meyer and noted that pictures of the alley depict existing garages adjacent to and near this lot. The proposed garage would not diverge from the character of the neighborhood, and with the intention of the standard to prevent looming of structures onto neighboring lots, since the garage backs to an alley of approximately 20 feet, that won’t be an issue here. Commission member Vogel agreed with the statements offered by Meyer and Coffman, noting the existing foundation may pose a safety risk which could be remedied by completion of the garage. Vice-Chair Shuff agreed with previous comments, adding that while the increase in square footage appears to significant, a big portion of that is actually taken up by a carport that has roof area. Shuff stated his opinion that the request seems reasonable, and he can be in support. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 August 11, 2022 Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Coffman to APPROVE ZBA220023 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the existing increase to the primary building came from finishing the attic space, not increasing building size; the proposed garage is one story in height and meeting required setbacks; the carport area is currently used as a parking space; the proposed garage was issued a permit and construction started resulting in an unfinished building. 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 Yeas: Shuff, Meyer, Coffman, Vogel Nays: - Absent: La Mastra, Lawton, McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA220025 Address: 1024 Ponderosa Dr. Owner/ Petitioner: Steve Otis Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building that will encroach 8.5 feet in the 15-foot rear setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Ponderosa Drive, near where Tamarac Dr. T-bones into Ponderosa. The property is located in the R-L (low-density residential) zoning district; one typical design in this R-L zone is the lack of alleys. Therefore, lots tend to have a greater rear-yard setback. Setbacks are in place to prevent looming structures and adverse shading onto a neighboring property. The request is to build a shed in the rear yard; according to the set-back, the shed would be located 6.5 feet from the rear property line, which results in a total setback encroachment of 8.5 feet in the required 15-foot rear-yard setback. Referring to the site plan, Beals noted the presence of some mature trees in the rear yard and surmised that if the shed were to be moved closer to the house, the trees would risk being impacted the shed’s roof height, etc. There is also an easement that occurs along the rear property line; with the proposed setback at 6.5 feet, the shed would not encroach into the easement. Beals presented photos of the front and rear of the property, noting the proposed location of the shed and the 6.5-foot setback. Beals noted that one measurement appeared to have been taken from the exterior wall and one taken from the edge of the eave, but either way the proposed location of the shed would not encroach upon the rear easement. Commission member Meyer asked Beals if the indicated 6-foot measurement was taken from the eave rather than the wall? Beals responded that was his assumption based on the provided materials, but final confirmation of that measurement point would need to come from the applicant. Beals also mentioned that within the R-L district, there are not as many restrictions placed upon total allowable floor area. Application Presentation: Applicant representative Steve Otis, 1024 Ponderosa Dr., addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Otis stated that he did not understand the intent of the 15-foot setback requirement, commenting that he first learned of the requirement when he received an email from Zoning Inspector Rob Bianchetto. Otis contended that if he were to follow the 15-foot setback, the shed would consume most of the usable space within the backyard. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 August 11, 2022 Otis commented that during a subsequent conversation between himself and Bianchetto, he asked how the 15-foot rear setback was originally determined/decided. He was told that answer needed to be answered by another department. Otis voiced his frustration at not having his question answered regarding how setback requirements were decided. Otis closed his remarks by stating his opinion that is unreasonable that he be required to argue his case and pay a $300 fee, when in fact he felt the City’s requirements were unreasonable. Vice-Chair Shuff attempted to explain the requirement for a 15-foot setback, stating that every zone district in the city has certain rules and regulations. In the R-L district, there are setbacks in place for every property including front-yard, side-yard, and rear-yard. Shuff explained that because there are no alleys in the R-L district, the 15-foot setback attempts to provide buffer space between structures placed on the rear portion of abutting properties. Sightlines and privacy issues also come into play when determining setbacks. Beals commented that setbacks exist in general to prevent structures looming into adjoining properties. Also, in this case structures are regulated, but landscaping is not. Mature landscaping appears to be present on the opposite side of the property line, which may limit view lines between the properties. One characteristic of this zone district is to have more open back yards that are not surrounded by structures. A 15-foot setback helps to maintain this. Otis stated that many of his neighbors have structures present in their rear yards that are closer than 15-feet to their fence lines, and some he has talked to are planning on replacing their structures with more substantial buildings. Commission member Meyer referred to the site plan, which indicated the shed would be 12 feet by 24 feet. Meyer asked the applicant if those were the dimensions of the walls; applicant Otis responded yes. Meyer asked if the 6.5-foot measurement was taken from the rear property line; Otis confirmed. Meyer asked for the distance of the easement from the property. Beals indicated the easement is six feet from the rear of the property. Meyer asked for the size of the shed’s overhang; Otis indicated it would be only about 6 inches. Vice-Chair Shuff asked how tall the shed would be; Otis responded the shed would reach a maximum height of 13 feet. Audience member Kelsa Middough, 1025 Hillcrest Dr., addressed the Commission and agreed to participate in a hybrid format. Middough stated that she was the rear neighbor and property owner to 1024 Ponderosa Dr. and has no issues with the shed being built as proposed. Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer stated his opinion that the request seems reasonable, especially considering the location of the mature trees within the yard. Additionally, it is helpful to hear from the neighbor to the rear, who is in support of the request; they would be most-impacted by changes made to the rear-yard setback. Meyer stated his support for approval of the request. Commission member Coffman reiterated the comments made my Meyer, noting that the mature trees along adjacent fence lines helps to mitigate the potential for looming structures. Also, with the location of the mature trees within the rear yard, the proposed shed location keeps the continuity of the larger yard space. Commission member Vogel commented that hearing from the neighbor is a big help in supporting the request and reinforces the idea that the shed location as proposed is appropriate. Vice-Chair Shuff commented that when looking at a Google Earth image of the neighborhood, it appears that there are many existing sheds in rear yards that are closer than 15 feet to the rear property lines. Whether they have been approved or not, there is now a pattern that has been