Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 03/10/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting was 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 MARCH 10, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the February 10, 2022, Minutes. The motion was adopted, with Lawton unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220005 Address: 622 W Mountain Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Greg and Betsy Wheeler Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) & (4) Project Description: This is a request for a 120 sq ft accessory structure (shed) to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot rear setback (from existing alley) and 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. Additionally, for the eave to be 12.5 feet tall along the side property line; the allowed maximum height is 10 feet. Structures that are 120 sq ft or less are exempt from floor area calculations. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of W Mountain and N Loomis, and is the second property in from that corner. The request today is to build an accessory structure on the North-west corner of the property. A variance is necessary due to the proposal to build the structure within three feet of both the LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: 39B958B5-7D4D-424F-8B73-FE56F5F401E1 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 March 10, 2022 rear and side property lines. For accessory buildings along an alley, without a garage door, the required side and rear setback is five feet. This structure does not count towards square footage calculations, because it is under 120 square feet. However, it still requires a building permit because the proposed height is over 8 feet (the proposed structure is approximately 12 -13 feet a the peak). Beals continued with the presentation of a lot plan and aerial view of the property, noting the presence of a large tree in the north-west corner, as well as an existing garage and accompanying driveway that exits to the alley. The neighbor’s property also has a garage/alley that lead to the alley. Beals presented renderings of the proposed structure, noting that the maximum height, measured fr om grade to the peak of the structure, is marked as 13 ft 7 in. The access doors are normal size for person entry. The applicant’s description of the structure notes it as being a “play structure”, though Beals commented that the doors would accommodate normal adult-sized persons. Pictures of the property as seen from the street and looking back towards the alley were presented, along with pictures taken from the alley entrance from N Loomis looking east. Beals stated there are some non-conforming structures present along the alley in adjacent lots, and may be some structures that are non-conforming and/or illegal. The neighboring garage does meet the required setback along the alley. Pictures from the alley looking west also depict the corner of the applicant lot wherein the proposed structure would be placed. Commission member Shuff asked if the fence seen in photographs was representative of the approximate property line shown in the survey. Beals indicated that the fence was located along the approximate property line; the applicant may speak to that as well during their presentation. Commission member Lawton asked if the large tree identified in the aerial view was located on the applicant’s property or on a neighbor’s property. Beals stated his belief that the tree is located within the applicant's property and asked the applicant to provide clarification during their presentation. Application Presentation: Applicant Representative Jeremy Tamlin and applicant Greg Wheeler addressed the Commission, and both agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Tamlin stated that the tree in question is located on the applicant’s property, and in fact is one of the main reasons for requesting a variance. The tree i s large a mature, and it’s location lends to the placement of the proposed structure more towards the back of the property. This is also a reason for the height of the proposed structure: digging a normal foundation would negatively affect the root structure of the tree, so instead the proposed structure would employ a pier system with raised floor, which would avoid excavation. Chair La Mastra asked Tamlin if they could confirm the location of the fence as being on the property line; Tamlin stated that he believed the fence to be right on the property line but did not have the survey in front of him for verification. La Mastra asked if the three feet encroachement would be measured from the fence line; Tamlin answered in the affirmative, stating that the property line would be surveyed and pinned, and measurements would be taken off of that determination. Commission member Lawton asked for clarification regarding the tree, stating that it seems that the goal of the variance is to get closer to the side and rear property lines. Lawton stated his understanding of wanting to get closer to the rear of the lot, but didn’t understand the goal of getting closer to the side property line. Applicant and home owner Greg Wheeler addressed Lawton’s questions, stating that with the narrowness of the yard, the more the structure moves away from the fence, even by a few feet, it begins to feel as if it is sitting in the center of the yard. Wheeler commented one of the big things that they have tried to accomplish through out this process, working with neighbors, was to minimize any adverse effects on neighboring property owners. That neighbor did submit a letter of support to the Commission. DocuSign Envelope ID: 39B958B5-7D4D-424F-8B73-FE56F5F401E1 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 March 10, 2022 La Mastra commented it was hard to determine the location of the tree based on the lot plan provided by the applicant, stating it may have been helpful to have the location of the tree marked on the plan. La Mastra asked the applicant to provide an approximate description of the distance between the trunk of the tree and the proposed structure wall. Wheeler indicated it would be about three feet from corner of the structure, at a diagonal. La Mastra asked how far the tree trunk is from the fence; Wheeler responded the tree is about 2-2.5 feet from the fence. Tamlin concurred with Wheeler’s estimate, commenting that the branches overhang the other side of the fence and provide some privacy, likely adding to the neighbor’s desire that the tree remain intact. La Mastra asked if there had been any discussion or thought given to lowering t he height/pitch of the roof. The renderings of the structure show a large transom window above the door along with a steeply pitched gable roof. Tamlin responded that the proposed design is aligned with that of the existing structure and was designed in a way that would maintain cohesion between the two. Applicant Wheeler reiterated the comments of Tamlin, stating that they did not want the structure to appear to be an “afterthought”. The goals is for the structure to blend in the existing home by mimicking elements such as exterior brickwork, window dimensions, doors, etc. Shrinking the roof line down would alter the design to the point that it no longer matched the house. Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer commented he did not quite understand what exactly about the aesthetic the proposed design is attempting to match. Removing the transom window over the door and reducing the height of the roof is certainly doable and wouldn’t be a detriment to the overall design. Meyer stated he understood the reluctance to change roof pitch, which could be aesthetically problematic. Meyer stated that while removing the transom window and lowering the roof height could be a simple solution, there may also be some limitation on ceiling height that are in play. Meyer stated his appreciation for the applicant’s thoughtfulness to put the structure on piers so as not to damage the tree. In terms of the setbacks, Meyer does not have a problem with the rear -side encroachment but does see reason that the five-foot side setback could not be met. Commission member Lawton asked if there were any prior variances on this property based upon the amount of square footage at the read-half of the property? Seems a lot of it is occupied or has a structure on it. Beals answered that he had not come across any previous variances, but suspected that the size of the proposed structure is below the 120 square foot maximum due to the lot being already close to maxed-out on allowable square footage. Beals offered to perform additional research to confirm. Beals also commented that the wall height, stating that if the structure were to be rotated, they would also meet the code standard if the taller wall heights were North/South, rather than East/West as proposed. Lawton stated he understood getting closer to rear setback because of the tree, but does not understand the proposal to move closer to the side fence/tree, as that could ultimately be detrimental to the tree and its roots. Lawton suggested that Beals may also want to make comment on the sight distances down the alley. Regarding sight lines/distances down the alley, Beals commented that placing a structure in the corner of the lot as proposed may impede a vehicle’s visibility while entering/exiting driveways from the alley. There is a six-foot tall fence there now. A shed encroaching in that setback does reduce the visibility of cars using the driveway(s) as well as visibility of vehicles driving along the alley itself. Beals stated he would continue to research any previous variances for the property while the Commission members hold discussion. Chair La Mastra stated she is struggling with the overall height of the structure, commenting that she does not have as many issues with the setbacks. With the fence already in place, sight distances in the alley are already reduced/affected. 10-foot eaves on a structure this small seems like a lot. Commission member Shuff agreed with the comments of Meyer regarding the setbacks; Shuff does not have as much of an issue with the rear-side (alley) setback, due the presence of the existing fence. DocuSign Envelope ID: 39B958B5-7D4D-424F-8B73-FE56F5F401E1 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 March 10, 2022 Shuff shared his opinion regarding the side setback that there is room to add the five -foot setback, which would ultimately help the tree. Thinking of long-term adjacency to the east, the owner could change over again, and there isn’t much impact to that potential owner down the road. Shuff commented that in terms of the height, we need to ask ourselves at what point is something still an accessory structure, and does a certain height then deem a structure as something other than an accessory structure. Code is somewhat clear on this, but it may be something the Commission wants or needs to consider. La Mastra asked Beals to read out the definition of an accessory structure. Beals stated that there are three definitions included within the Code – Accessory Building, Accessory Structure, and Accessory use. Beals read the definition of Accessory building: “Accessory Building shall mean a building detached from a principal building, and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principle building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building.” La Mastra stated her opinion that the proposed structure meets the definition of an Accessory Building and asked the Commission if there was any disagreement. La Mastra asked Beals to read out the definition of an Accessory Structure. Beals read the definitio n as follows: “Accessory structure shall mean a structure detached from the principal building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building.” Shuff asked if it is then the Zone District which describes the size of accessory buildings. Beals confirmed Shuff’s statement and stated that each Zone District defines the limits of what an acc essory building can be. Shuff stated his understanding that an accessory building is limited to 120 square feet and asked if there is a height limit. La Mastra added that the maximum allowable height is stated as 10 feet – part of the variance request today is for a variance of the maximum structure height . Beals clarified the 10-foot maximum applies to the eave, not necessarily the overall building height. Shuff re-stated his understanding of the proposed structure, commenting that the eaves seemed to meet the requirement while the gables did not. Shuff added this is a common request type, and it comes down to roof form. If this were a hip roof, with a ten-foot eave height the proposed structure would meet the requirement. Because this is a gable roof, it’s almost a stylistic thing. Because of this, Shuff states he is less-inclined to have a concern over total roof height based on those parameters. La Mastra commented regarding subordinated use that if a building such as this becomes taller and taller, does it necessarily appear subordinate, especially w hen considering a one-story house on the lot. Shuff stated the house is technically one and a half stories, but he is still comfortable with the height. Shuff added that his biggest hang-up currently is with the requested side-yard setback. Commission member McCoy stated he does not have problems with either the setback or the height, partly because of the landscaping and placement of the “massive” tree. Additionally, McCoy has taken into consideration the size and placement of the neighboring garage, which is pretty large. When dealing with a subordinate building it only pertains to the home on the same property. The proposed structure seems that it would fit in with the character of other existing structures, and the existing fence will provide some amount of cover as well. McCoy stated his opinion that the structure appears to be a good fit, and he would vote to approve the variance for both setback and height. La Mastra acknowledged McCoy’s consideration of the adjacent garage, since that is the struc ture the proposed structure would be closest to. La Mastra stated her opinion that the adjacent garage is more impactful than the tree in her estimation. La Mastra commented that she could agree with the comments of Shuff and McCoy regarding approval. Meyer acknowledged the factor of having the proposed structure next to a much-larger garage and a huge tree, which both dwarf the proposed structure to a certain extent. As a designer, Meyer found it a bit odd when considering proportions, as the proposed structure maintains a small footprint but grows substantially in the vertical direction. However, after reading the definitions and realizing an accessory DocuSign Envelope ID: 39B958B5-7D4D-424F-8B73-FE56F5F401E1 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 March 10, 2022 structure is allowed to be taller that this, Meyer may be more inclined to support. If the proposed structure had maintained a roof height under eight feet, they wouldn’t even be submitting for a permit. Neighborhood context may trump all here, so the points made regarding the adjacent garage and tree are well taken. Meyer stated his willingness to consider support of the request. Lawton commented he has come around a bit, with the discussion around accessory building and adjacent structures. There isn’t anything from an overall standpoint that would cause Lawton to deny. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220005 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; other types of accessory structures are allowed 13 -foot eave height; the portion of building with increased eave height is seven feet in length. Additionally, in regards to the setbacks, the setback encroachment is not detrimental to the public good. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considering the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals commented that the Commission currently has five applications for next month. The plan is to hold the hearing in-person next month. Staff are currently working to make the Hearing “hybrid”. Beals also commented on the current work of City Clerk’s office to fill Commission seats. LURC currently does not have new applicants, but that posting may be re-activated. Commission member Lawton offered to put the word out to his contacts, as did Commission member Meyer. Commission discussed food options to the upcoming meeting, deciding that a savory breakfast was desired! Four “seconds” were offered in support of the soft motion for burritos and coffee. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 9:19am Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: 39B958B5-7D4D-424F-8B73-FE56F5F401E1 5/11/2022