Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 07/21/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer 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 JULY 21, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Commission member Meyer. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the June 9, 2022 Regular Hearing Minutes and the July 1 Special Meeting Minutes. The motion was adopted; Commission member Shuff abstained from voting. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220022 Address: 3418 Thames Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Georgia Aker Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) Project Description: This is a request to have a fence in the front yard taller than 4 feet high. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is just south of Birmingham Drive and north of Enfield Street. The request is to build a five- foot fence in the front yard; the Land Use Code allows a maximum front yard fence height of four feet. The location of the fence would be from the front wall of the house along the north extending to the street, and from the front wall of the garage to the street. The fence does not go across parallel to the street but runs along both north and south property lines. There are existing fences that enclose the LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 July 21, 2022 rear and side yards. The intent of the proposed fence is to elevate privacy and safety within the front yard. Beals continued with pictures of the property, showing the proposed fence as being already installed. Hence, this is a request to maintain the fence as currently built, as opposed to adjusting. Beals noted the Engineering Department does require a fence permit for any fences that are near the public right- of-way; the applicant was encouraged to check with the Engineering Department to see if a fence permit is required. Beals explained that Engineering may need to issue a permit depending on the manner in which the fence was constructed, or at minimum in order to document the authorization of the fence. Beals explained that the only requirement that Engineering usually enforces, regardless of whether the fence is parallel or perpendicular to the public right-of-way, is that a fence is stepped back at least two feet from the back of sidewalk. The existing fence was installed within the required two feet, so there may need to be adjustments in order to obtain the permit. Describing the fence, Beals described it as being a three-rail picket fence with spacing in between the slats. The spacing is large enough to be able to see through the fence but still offer some privacy and division between the properties. Chair La Mastra asked to clarify that the Commission would not be approving/denying the encroachment into the two-foot setback from rear of sidewalk, and that would instead be determined by Engineering. The Land Use Review Commission is only looking at the variance related to fence height. Beals confirmed that the Land Use Review Commission is only looking at the height. Application Presentation: Applicant Georgia Aker, 3418 Thames Ct. addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Aker stated that she had lived at the current address for more than 25 years and lives a very quiet life and wants her peace and enjoyment of her property to be respected. Aker explained that she had experienced numerous issues with tenants in a neighboring rental property, including barking dogs, harassment, and trespassing/vandalism. Aker stated that she eventually installed security cameras on her property and contacted Police in an effort to address the conflict she was experiencing with her neighbors. On the other side of the house, Aker described a situation wherein the neighbors would park their vehicles stacked out into the cul-de-sac, which resulted in her driveway being blocked. She spoke with the neighbors numerous times and attempted mediation in 2002. The parking issues continued into at least 2016, and the problem continues with the current residents. Due to these issues, Aker explained that she decided to install fences in order to create division between the two neighboring properties as a means to create peace and quiet within her own property. Aker stated that since the fence has gone up, the unpleasantries have largely stopped. She stated that if she were made to lower the fence to four feet, the unpleasantries would be begin again. Aker has no plans to move and just wants peace. Commission member Meyer asked the applicant if they were aware that a permit was required for the installation of a fence. Applicant Aker indicated she called a landscape who was referred by a friend and assumed they would have applied for the proper permits. Aker stated she did call the Zoning Department prior to installation and was not made aware of either the four-foot height requirement or the need for an Engineering permit. Audience Member Kerri Allison, 3424 Thames Ct., addressed the Commission and agreed to participate in a hybrid format. Allison stated that as a resident, she was compelled to ask what the repercussions would be for building a structure without first obtaining the proper documentation. Chair La Mastra answered the options would be to either correct the physical structure to ensure compliance, or to come before the Land Use Review Commission and seek a variance. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 July 21, 2022 Allison continued, stating that while she did not feel the fence in question should grant Ms. Aker permission to toss items over it that she does not feel compelled to have to contend with, and in some sort of attempt to satisfy her discontent with the neighbors and the neighborhood, Allison stated for the record that she did feel the fence was aesthetically pleasing; it causes no discontent or disruption with the adjoining neighbors nor the neighborhood. With that, Allison urged the Commission approve the variance request and maintain the fence as it is. Commission Discussion: Chair La Mastra stated the fence is aesthetically pleasing and seems to have quelled some of the discontent in the neighborhood without causing additional strife. La Mastra appreciated staff pointing out that there is the ability to see through the fence, thus minimizing safety concerns of those travelling along the sidewalk. La Mastra stated her preference to approve the request and maintain the fence at a five-foot rather than four-foot height. Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments of La Mastra, and asked Beals if the Commission and subsequent motion needed to stipulate anything about the Engineering department. Beals indicated we can add a stipulation, but it is not a requirement, as Engineering would be following up and reaching out to the applicant anyway. Vice-Chair Shuff agreed with previous comments offered by La Mastra and Lawton, adding that the transparency of the fence will allow for pedestrian and vehicle safety within the cl-de-sac. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA220022 based on the presentations by staff and testimony of the applicant, as well as based on findings under section 2.10.4(H) to recommend approval with the condition a fence permit is approved by the City Engineering department. Findings include the variance is not detrimental to the public good, provided a fence permit is approved; the transparency of the fence is designed to allow visual from the ground to the top of the fence; the increase fence height is only located along the side property lines. 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, La Mastra, McCoy, Lawton Nays: - Absent: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 2. APPEAL ZBA220023 – POSTPONED Address: 524 Stover St. Owner/ Petitioner: Reyes Sarmiento Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the total floor area square footage allowed on the lot by 942 square feet. The maximum permitted is 3,625 square feet. *Prior to hearing Appeal ZBA220024, Vice Chair Shuff stated for the record that he has previously performed work with the applicant’s contractor [Keira Harkin],but does not currently have current work with them. Because of this, Shuff does not believe that he currently has any conflict of interest in hearing the appeal. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 July 21, 2022 3. APPEAL ZBA220024 Address: 409 S Grant Ave. Owner: Ashley & Jordan Radin Petitioner: Keira Harkin, General Contractor Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(1)(d) Project Description: This is a request to have a portion of the second floor overhang the lower side exterior walls. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on S Grant Ave. just south of W Magnolia St. and north of W Mulberry St. The property is an interior parcel onto the block. The site plan provided in the applicant materials shows the existing conditions of the property; the request is to build an addition on the back, a portion of which would include a second-floor overhang. The overhang necessitates the request for a variance. Presenting drawings of the proposed side elevations, Beals described the window/dormer element that would overhang the first floor. The Land Use Code within Conservation Districts (N-C-M, N-C-L, N-C- B) have certain design standards to preserve and help architecture relate to Old Town architecture vocabulary. Part of this is not to allow overhangs of the second floor over first floor. Beals stated there are some exceptions to this standard, giving the example of a flat-roof porch which would have a second-story deck on top. Beals commented that in this case, the portion overhanging is very small in size, similar in size to the staircase inside or the width of a chimney of fireplace projection. Beals stated the intent of the code is to prevent the entire second floor from overhanging, not necessarily small elements. Beals presented drawings of the existing and proposed east elevations, noting the placement of the proposed window overhang. Continuing with pictures of the existing property when viewed from the sidewalk, Beals noted the distance of the proposed addition as well as existing overhanging landscaping would help to minimize the visibility of the proposed overhang. Chair La Mastra noted that when looking at the existing east elevation, there appears to be an overhang or projecting on the right side of the structure. Beals clarified the element to be an existing roof eave. Commission member Lawton asked to clarify that the bulk of the addition is not in question, it is just the overhanging window included in the proposed addition. Beals confirmed that to be accurate. Application Presentation: Applicant representative Keira Harkin, General Contractor, 201 E Oak St., addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Keira stated she would be the first to admit that of the many Land Use Codes they try to adhere to, the second-story overhang requirement was missed. Harkin explained that from a building standpoint, the goal was to bridge the existing vaulted ceiling to the addition with a second-story hallway. In creating the hallway space, the intent is to create a new office space to accommodate increased remote work within the home. The projection of the window helps to create more usable office space as well as bridge the gap between existing and new construction. From an aesthetic standpoint, the articulation with the cantilever helps to break up a long wall, and from a building standpoint it helps to join new and existing roof structures—the construction of which is not visible in the plans. Harkin also noted that from streetside, the window is hidden from view as depicted in the photos shown by Beals.