HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 11/10/2022
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
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
All Commission members were present with the exception of Chair La Mastra and Commission
member Vogel.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Lawton made a motion, seconded by Meyer to approve the September 8, 2022, Regular Hearing
Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA220032
Address: 4900 S College Ave, Unit 120
Owner: ROSEBEN INC
Petitioner: Jeff Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1)
Project Description:
This is a request to install an additional primary detached sign along the west frontage of the property.
One primary detached sign is allowed per building frontage.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on the corner of Fairway Lane and S College Avenue/Frontage Road. The property
consists of two lots and includes a primary building and parking lot. The request is to build a new free-
standing sign on the property; there is one existing free-standing sign on the property currently that
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 November 10, 2022
fronts S College Ave/Frontage Rd. The requested sign would be located on the south end of the
property, nearer to the drive entrance and Fairway Ln. The requested sign would be a multi-tenant
sign and would be at the height and within the setback as allowed by code. Beals presented pictures
of the existing sign as well as site plans depicting the location of the proposed signs and noted the
existence of an easement along the property.
The existing free-standing sign is out of compliance with current standards. With any change on the
property, that sign will need to be brought into compliance. There was a standard for pole signs that
requires a covering in order to reduce the air space between the sign and the ground. The sign was
supposed to come into compliance in 2019; with COVID, enforcement was paused. Now, enforcement
has resumed, and the expectation is that the sign will now be brough into compliance.
Beals reiterated to the Commission that the current request is to add a second primary sign along the
Frontage Road; staff recommends that the property continue to be limited to one primary sign. The
applicants can determine where to best locate a sign on the property to maximize visibility.
Commission member Lawton asked Beals if the staff recommendation include a determination of
preference between one sign over the other, as well as bringing the existing sign in compliance? Beals
responded that recommendation by staff is simply to allow the use one free-standing sign on the
property. That may be accomplished by tearing down/modifying the existing sign in its current location;
producing and installing a new sign as proposed; or determining another appropriate location for a
free-standing sign on the property, so long as the final sign meets the applicable standards.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Jeff Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics, 3307 S College Ave, addressed the
Commission. Everhart stated that the clients’ issue with the existing sign is that it is too far away from
the business entrance. The business is a VCA veterinary hospital; they currently occupy one suite of
the building and are currently building out a second.
Everhart stated that currently there is a parking problem; all access to the lot is off of the south side,
but the current sign is located on the north side and is not effective at directing traffic to the drive entry.
The VCA has little use for the current multi-tenant sign and would instead benefit from a dedicated
sign on the south side of the property. Everhart commented the proposed sign is more akin to a
directional sign than a primary sign and would be partially screened by existing trees. Everhart also
stated that a plan has been drafted to bring the existing sign up to code.
Commission member Meyer asked if there was any reason to keep the old sign. Everhart stated that
he had not spoken to the property owner directly; Avis Car Rental rents the third space in the building,
and their signage is currently included in the existing sign.
Vice-Chair Shuff asked to clarify that the existing sign is a multi-tenant sign, representing all the
businesses located in the building. Everhart confirmed that description. Everhart commented that VCA
is presented as the primary tenant on the existing sign and would be so on the proposed signs.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman commented that the existing sign doesn’t seem to serve much purpose
and is located further away (approx. 350-400 feet) from the entrance along S College Ave than would
be effective. Coffman stated he would be fine with approving the proposed sign with the condition that
the existing sign be removed.
Vice-Chair Shuff asked if Coffman would support approval of one primary sign, which would not
require a variance. Shuff stated that the applicants are proposing keeping the existing sign, which
would be brought into compliance, and adding the proposed sign for a total of two. Coffman suggested
that in that scenario, we would deny the request for two signs and would suggest that the applicant
remove the existing sign to be able to create and locate a new primary sign.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 November 10, 2022
Commission member Lawton commented that besides the variance for request for additional signage,
there appears to be a need for more communication amongst the various tenants and landowner to
make sure that all parties are aware of and okay with the proposed changes. Lawton shared his
opinion that this is still a bit preliminary, while acknowledging the desire to improve the effectiveness of
the signage on the property.
Shuff commented that if it is felt that the existing signage is no longer effective, its removal would not
post a very big impact. Putting the signage allowance on a more visible location near the entry to the
property makes a lot of sense. Shuff stated he wasn’t sure if he saw the rational for hardship based on
the Land Use Code as justification as indicated in the request.
Commission member Meyer agreed with Shuff, commenting that the existing sign could be removed
and replaced with the proposed sign, and would be more effective. There is no need to have both
signs on the property.
Commission member McCoy stated his agreement with previous comments.
Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Coffman to DENY ZBA220032 for the
following reasons: the variance would add an additional multi-tenant panel sign along the
primary footage; the existing primary sign needs to be adjusted, it can be relocated to a more
prominent and visible location at this time; insufficient evidence has been provided in showing
how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that
complies with the standard; insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique
hardship to the property.
Yeas: Meyer, McCoy, Coffman, Shuff, Lawton Nays: - Absent: La Mastra, Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED
2. APPEAL ZBA220033
Address: 135 Bockman Dr.
Owner: BONIUK INTERESTS LTD
Petitioner: Jeff Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(D) Table (D)
Project Description:
This is a request to exceed the maximum allowed height for three wall signs: one wall sign by 5 feet,
and two wall signs by 1 foot 6 inches. The maximum allowed height for a wall sign is 7 feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on the corner of S College Ave. and Bockman Dr., west of John F Kennedy Pkwy.
The building and was previously occupied by JC Penney and is currently being re-developed into a
Murdoch’s Ranch & Home Supply. With the redevelopment comes new signage; the owner tenant is
requesting over-sized wall signage on three walls: west, south and east.
Beals presented illustrations of the proposed sign images and locations, noting that the standards of
our sign code are in place for many reasons, one of which is to reduce visual clutter and distractions
cause by signage. All of the buildings along S College Ave. are subject to the same standard of a 7-
foot maximum wall sign height. That includes buildings that are and are not directly along the street
setback. Previous tenants of the building (Shopko, JC Penney) did conform to the 7-foot maximum for
their previous signage.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 4 November 10, 2022
The first sign requested (on west/primary face of building) is 5 feet over the 7-foot maximum set forth
by the standard, or almost twice as large as allowed. The other signs (on south and east sides) are
proposed to be 8 feet 6 inches, which would be 1 foot 6 inches taller than allowed.
Beals noted there is a ground sign present. There is some question as to the visibility of the west wall
sign due to the building being setback from the street. Beals again stated that previous tenants
employed a 7-foot sign without issue. The ground sign is along S College Ave and will be re-faced to
identify the new tenant.
Commission member McCoy asked if the allowable square footage of signage on the building would
be greater than the size of the sign being proposed? Beals responded the height of the sign is what is
in question. The applicant is still within their allowable square footage for total signage.
Commission member Lawton asked for clarification, if by “height” we are referencing the height from
ground level or the overall dimension of the sign? Beals clarified that the standard in questions
pertains to the height of the of the individual sign, which has a maximum height allowed of 7 feet; the
proposed sign would be 12 feet tall on the west side; proposed signs on the south and east sides
would be 8 ½ feet tall.
Vice-Chair Shuff asked if the sign included all elements, such as logo, brand name, lettering, oval, etc.
Beals confirmed that the sign consists of the standard marketing image of Murdoch’s. Beals explained
that the sign area calculation does not consider content, but instead measures the complete marketing
image. Shuff asked how much allowable square footage existed for signs on the property, based on
their frontage measurement. Beals offered to message his team to determine an accurate response.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Jeff Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics, 3307 S College Ave, addressed the
Commission. Everhart stated the building is huge, with lots of frontage, and theoretically could have
seven-foot-tall lettering around all sides. The applicant’s preference is to instead use their
logo/branding on all sides. Lettering on the largest sign would be approximately 24 inches tall; lettering
on the two smaller signs would be approximately 18 inches tall. Everhart commented that previous
tenant JC Penney used a sign that was larger overall by square footage than the sign being proposed,
and it was his opinion that the larger sign would not cause any negative impact to any adjacent
properties.
Commission member Lawton asked if the sign would be lit; Everhart responded the sign would include
LED lighting. Lawton asked from what direction the lighting would come; Everhart responded all
lighting would be internal, and the brown would not show at night because it was a block-out color, so
only logo and lettering would be visible at night.
Commission member Lawton commented that the former JC Penney sign was fairly large and may
have not itself fit the requirements. Lawton urged caution, noting that just down the way near Harmony
there are examples of signs that are too big and unsightly. This request is not as flashy. Lawton noted
that current changes being made to the façade of the building create a larger space to accommodate a
larger sign; if the branding/sign image is shrunk down too small it becomes difficult to decipher. Lawton
stated he could go either way on approving at this point.
Commission member McCoy stated that he had mixed emotions regarding this request, because it
contains multiple requests. McCoy offered that he could definitely support approving the signs on the
east and south sides, as both are harder to see from the right of ways. This building also sits back
farther than most others along that stretch of road. However, the requested 5-feet overage is a
significant variance from what is allowed. McCoy recalled that the JC Penney sign was much bigger
than what is proposing. McCoy stated that he was undecided and would appreciate more discussion.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 5 November 10, 2022
Commission member Meyer agreed with McCoy’s point that the building is set back farther than other
buildings nearby, which could affect legibility. Meyer stated that from a designer’s perspective, this is in
part a graphic design challenge. It can be very limiting to have one version of a logo for marketing and
sign purposes; most branding exercises require multiple logos and branding images for use in a
multitude of applications. In this instance, it is scaling issue wherein the oval is the whole signage, so
when the logo is limited to a certain size and setback, the word “Murdoch’s” becomes harder to read.
Thus, Meyer can understand the tendency to increase the oval overall in order to maintain readability
of the word “Murdoch’s”. However, if there were alternative options for logo, it could still make a bigger
presence on the building.
Commission member Coffman agreed with previous comments, stating that the apparent hardship
here is that the “Murdoch’s” lettering appear too small within the given height allotment; however, that
is an applicant-created hardship due to the insistence on using the logo as the sign. The massing of
the sign isn’t especially overwhelming on the south and east sides. On the west side, there is a ground
sign present along the frontage, which is visible, and can be easily matched to the sign on the building.
Therefore, Coffman does not see the need for such a large increase in signage on that side of the
building.
Vice-Chair Shuff offered his appreciation for the previous points made and commented that the
proposed lettering would be about 24 inches at it’s tallest; in theory, if only lettering were used the sign
could be three times as tall and as long. Shuff tends to agree that the east and south signage request
seems reasonable, based on relative size of facades, setbacks, wall size etc. Shuff cannot support the
request for the primary sign on the west side as submitted. If the applicant wants to reduce the overall
size down to 9 or 10 feet (representing 20-30% over allowed), that might be acceptable. As presented,
it is a pretty big deviation from sign code. It also may not be appropriate for the Commission to attempt
to determine individual sign size.
Lawton acknowledged the need for the oval shape to be maintained, as it mimics the shape of a rodeo
belt buckle and alludes to the type of merchandise being sold within. Lawton agreed that the sign
could be smaller and still be effective. As a side comment, Lawton stated his excitement that a new
tenant would be occupying the site, as it has sat vacant for quite a while.
Meyer summarized the feelings of the Commission, suggesting that the request for the east and south
side signs could be approved, while the request for the west-side sign be denied. Coffman stated he
could support that type of motion. McCoy stated that his decision was helped by the presence of the
ground sign, which can be used effectively to draw attention along the frontage.
Meyer summarized that by denying the request for the 12-foot sign on the west, the applicant can still
accomplish their visibility goals on that side by use of the existing ground sign that is code compliant.
Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Coffman to APPROVE a portion of
and DENY a portion of ZBA220033. The request for south and east facing signs is approved.
The granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the
proposal as submitted would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a
nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in section 1.2.2 with the
following findings: the two signs are an increase of only 21% of the allowed signage height.
toThe request for west-facing sign is denied based on the following findings: the variance
increase of the allowed sign heigh is a 71% increase; the property is allowed a free-standing
sign to increase visibility along the S College Ave frontage; insufficient evidence has been
provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better
than a proposal that complies with the standard; Insufficient evidence has been provided in
establishing a unique hardship to the property.
Yeas: Meyer, McCoy, Coffman, Shuff, Lawton Nays: - Absent: La Mastra, Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 6 November 10, 2022
3. APPEAL ZBA220034
Address: 210 Clover Ln.
Owner: Dana Barclay / Erick Erickson
Petitioner: Mike Bockelman, Contractor
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(E)(2); 4.7(E)(4)
Project Description:
This is a request to build an attached garage and an extension of the front wall of the house that will
require two variances:
1. Request for the attached garage to encroach 4 feet into the 5-foot side setback.
2. Request for the front wall to encroach 1 foot into the 15-foot front setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located near the corner of Clover Ln and Laporte Ave. The property has an existing house
with an attached garage. The garage does vary from its setback along the south property line. Beals
noted this subdivision developed originally in the County; there is no plat with it but is instead
described by metes and bounds. There are a variety of different setbacks present amongst the various
houses.
Beals presented images of the existing house compared to what is being proposed, noting a portion of
the front wall would be bumped out closer to the public right of way in the front setback. The attached
garage would be extensively rebuilt, a certain potion of the garage would maintain a setback distance,
while another portion would return to the 100% encroachment.
Awnings on the front of the garage would be new and go back to house and are permitted into the
encroachment. The new encroachment we are seeing is the front wall bump out. Additionally, the
carport element depicted in the plans is no longer planned to move forward. Beals presented several
pictures of the existing and planned garage structures, noting the areas where the proposed garage
would achieve a 100% encroachment into the setback and calling out some existing and proposed
column features.
Commission member McCoy asked if the red barn structure seen in photos was a residence. Beals
confirmed that the structure was a residence and is located within the rear abutting property from the
subject property. McCoy stated that in an aerial photo of the neighborhood, there appeared to be a
massive roof/structure of some sort present in the neighborhood. Beals commented that there are a
number of non-conforming structures currently present in the neighborhood.
Commission member Lawton asked if the eave on the proposed garage structure is extending over the
property line? Beals confirmed that his understanding was that the eave did extend over the property
line.
Vice-Chair Shuff asked if everything being proposed was within the footprint of the existing garage?
Beals stated the existing garage would be taken down, and the new garage would have a different
footprint but would maintain the same setback as present.
Meyer stated the existing garage is setback 1 foot from the property line; the proposed garage seems
to maintain that same 1 foot setback but does so for a longer expanse of wall.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Mike Bockelman, 1715 E CR 70, Windsor, CO addressed the Commission.
Bockelman explained that the proposal would include demolition of the existing garage, which is
currently crumbling, and construction of an entirely new garage with very little change to the existing
footprint. If the new garage were to be relocated to achieve compliance, the structure would have to be
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 7 November 10, 2022
shifted to the north in a manner that would make entry from the south impossible. Moving the structure
north and east would create a drainage issue with the increase in impermeable surfaces. Water would
then dump towards the neighbors’ home. The most beneficial location for the applicant and neighbor is
to leave the location as close to current as possible. The elements that Bockelman would like to
change include creating a new foundation and raising wall height on the north and interior. The front
bump out and new awnings are proposed to create more character and a small usable area. Most
houses in the neighborhood are built the same way; the proposed changes would not only create
character but would do so in the spirit of the N-C-L zone district by conserving what is already there.
Commission member Coffman asked how drainage issues would be worsened by moving the garage
north and east, which effectively moves the garage farther away from the neighbors’ property.
Bockelman responded that more impermeable surface in the form of concrete and drives would
basically shed water onto the neighbors’ yard. As proposed, the design would include gutters that
could divert water away from the property line. The goal was to avoid adding unnecessary driveway
and to reduce overall project costs.
Coffman asked if the eave extends into the neighboring property. Bockelman stated he would be
happy with a four-foot structure encroachment and a 1-foot eave, which would allow for gutters along
the property line. The project is still in the preliminary design phase, so it would be good to know what
is allowed by the Commission before putting more resources towards multiple designs.
Shuff clarified that as proposed, the garage would be 16 feet 2.5 inches wide at a zero side-yard
setback. That would reduce to 15 feet 2.5 inches if the Commission were to approve a 4-foot
encroachment into the 5-foot setback (a difference of on foot from proposed). Bockelman confirmed
Shuff’s summarization.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Lawton commented that the proposal to move the garage back a foot in order to
mitigate drainage appeared to be a good option, rather than having the wall of the garage right up
against the property line and thus have water draining directly onto the neighbors’ lot. The front façade
bump-out appears to purely aesthetic but fits the character of the neighborhood.
Noah Beals reminded Vice-Chair Shuff that opportunity for public comment had been skipped; Shuff
then paused Commission Discussion to allow for public comment.
Applicant and property owner/resident Eric Erickson, 210 Clover Ln, addressed the Commission.
Erickson described the character of the neighborhood as “funky and weird”, statin that he has lived in
his residence for 17 years and simply wants to make it nicer. The house is small, without a basement,
so the garage functions as storage. Therefore, any additional square footage is useful; however, if it
needs to be reduced by a foot to accommodate eaves/gutters that is not a problem. Erickson has no
plans to ever move out of his house, so he wants it to look really good for a long time to come.
Lawton mentioned to the commission that a letter in support of the request had been submitted.
Vice-Chair Shuff commented that the 1-foot setback is necessary not only to provide space for eaves
and gutters, but to ensure that no footings be constructed in the neighboring property. Shuff feels the
request is reasonable, as the existing footprint is being matched and the conditions are pre-existing.
Beals noted that Building Code requires that all built elements need to be contained within their subject
property boundaries, including things like eaves and gutters. Beals questioned if the 1-foot setback as
suggested would be enough to accommodate those elements. Shuff acknowledged that Beals raised a
good point, suggesting that any motion crafted contain the condition to maintain a setback of 1-foot or
more as required to contain all built elements (i.e., eaves, gutters, etc.) within the property.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 8 November 10, 2022
Commission member Meyer clarified that the request is to encroach 4 feet into the 5-foot setback, not
to encroach the full 5 feet into the 5-foot setback. When we talk about pulling the wall off of the
property, that is in fact the request that is being asked of the commission. Lawton asked for
clarification between the request and the staff report recommendation, which recommends that the
encroachment be limited to 1 foot into the 5-foot setback.
Beals confirmed that staff recommends allowing the encroachment for the first portion of the garage, to
allow space for a vehicle to enter. Anything beyond that first section is recommended to meet the
setback requirements. That suggestion is based on the fact that there is not an alley present; there is
only one way around the building if it is brought to the property line, which could impede egress in the
event of fire.
Shuff, Lawton, and Commission member Coffman voiced some confusion at apparent discrepancies
between measurements in the application and staff materials. The commission asked Beals to re-state
and summarize staff recommendations for the sake of clarification before a motion is crafted.
Beals commented that there may be some error in the staff report. The overall staff recommendation is
that the garage be wide enough for a vehicle to enter, which is determined to be possible at a setback
of 3 feet 9 inches. Staff is open to having that setback run the entire length of the wall or the portion
that exist today. The portion that now comes to the property line either needs to be brought into
compliance, or the encroachment needs to be no greater than that of the front potion.
Coffman commented that because the proposed project is to demo and reconstruct the entire garage
foundation, it would not be possible to not ask that it be brought even with the front portion. The façade
is not being moved and functionality is not being compromised; the rear portion is simply being moved
away from the property line.
Meyer stated that because one of the stated goals of the project is to rip out the old foundation and
build from new, there is no hardship being created by asking for a new build to be built around an
existing foundation. Additionally, the need for fire safety is acknowledged, as it is an opportunity to
bring the property more into code compliance. Meyer stated that he would be ok with allowing a 1-foot
encroachment into the 5-foot side-yard setback for the length of the entire garage.
Shuff stated that he would be more comfortable with allowing a 2-foot encroachment, leaving a 3-foot
setback in order to maximize vehicular entry space at the front of the garage. That would leave a 12-
foot 2 inch outside dimension, resulting in an opening of approximately 12 feet. The intent seems to be
to create a usable garage, which is reasonable. However, setback should be maximized as much as
possible.
Coffman commented that as far as he could tell from the drawings, there is nothing to prevent
expansion on the north side of the garage.
Mike Bockelman asked to speak again and was granted permission. Bockelman stated that to the
north of the garage is an existing pergola structure which is not shown on the plans. The applicants’
hope is that the pergola does not have to be taken down.
Shuff posed the question, based on the criteria, if there is a hardship or is the proposed garage equal
to or better than and/or nominal and inconsequential based on what is already existing. Existing
condition is that the structure is right at the property line. The determination of the commission is if we
can make that condition better and still allow the proposed site of the garage to be feasible, while
maximizing setback along the property line.
Coffman stated that based on the discussion and proposal, he would be comfortable supporting a 2-
foot encroachment into the 5-foot setback.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
Land Use Review Commission Page 9 November 10, 2022
Meyer agreed that a 2-foot encroachment would achieve the goals of allowing vehicles to enter the
garage without creating a detrimental situation.
Lawton referred to the mention of storage towards the back of the garage, agreeing that a 2-foot
encroachment would provide adequate storage space within the garage and also provide space on the
driver-side for vehicle entry and exit. From a safety standpoint, it is important to maintain access from
the backyard.
Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Coffman to APPROVE ZBA220034
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: that the encroachment into the 5-foot side yard setback
is limited to 2 feet. Request for a 1-foot encroachment into the front-yard setback is approved.
Approval with conditions is granted for the following reasons: the variance with the condition
is not detrimental to the public good; the 2-foot side setback encroachment will continue to
allow the garage to be functional; the 1-foot front setback encroachment pertains to the new
front wall only; the garage is currently encroaching into the side yard setback. The front stoop
has an existing covering encroaching into the front setback; the existing neighborhood has
varying front setbacks. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but
in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and
will continue to advance the purpose the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Meyer, McCoy, Coffman, Shuff, Lawton Nays: - Absent: La Mastra, Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION
• OTHER BUSINESS
-We will be meeting in December (Regular Hearing scheduled for Thursday, December 8th)
-This is Taylor Meyer’s last meeting due to term expiration and absence next month; Chair La Mastra
will be termed-out after December.
-Aaron Guin re: Quasi-judicial mtgs require in-person attendance. There is a proposal going in front of
Council in December to allow quasi-judicial groups to meet in-person. Would know by January.
-Land Development Code (updated) was approved at second reading; may be formally active in
January.
• ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:01am
Ian Shuff, Vice-Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F951106-2340-4FF1-B676-9D8D71C4B4F3
12/29/2022