Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 03/09/2023 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo 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 MARCH 9, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of member San Filippo. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (January 12, 2023 Minutes) Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the January 12, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -None- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220013 Address: 1309 Remington St. Owner: Dan and Martha Connors Petitioner: Jordan Oberman, Designer/Builder Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(D)(6)(b) Project Description: This is a request for 3 variances to rebuild an accessory building (garage): 1. Request to exceed the total square footage allowed by 389.2 square feet; the maximum permitted is 2,394.8 square feet. 2. Request to exceed the total square footage allowed in the rear half by 139.25 feet; the maximum allowed is 871.75 square feet. 3. Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building without habitable space by 8 feet; the maximum allowed along the side lot line is 10 feet. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Minutes – March 9, 2023 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is near the corner of E Pitkin St and Remington St, across from the University Center for the Arts. The request is to demolish and existing garage on the back of the property and replace with a new build garage. The request includes variance to the floor area requirement that is not being met, as well as a request to exceed the eave height along the side property line. Beals described the plans for the garage, noting the South and North elevations and their described eave heights. Beals explained that eave height is restricted to 10 feet for an accessory building with non-habitable space (i.e. no water/sewer, unfinished garage/storage space). The design of this building has a gabled end that orients to the side property line, with a gabled peak with a maximum height of 18 feet. Beals explained that if the proposed building were shifted 90 degrees, with the gabled ends facing east and west (street and alley sides), it would probably meet the code. Because it is ori ented the other way, it creates higher eave heights along the side property lines. Because this item has a split staff recommendation, Beals explained that the recommendation simply is to allow the increase in floor area, but to deny the increase in eave height. There is not enough evidence to support having the eave height oriented to the side yard lines more than 10 feet. Beals also pointed out that this item was put on our agenda last year, but we did not have a quorum of Commission members to be able to hear the item, and thus it was not brought forward again until this time. Commission member Coffman asked Beals about a discrepancy between elevation drawings included in the agenda packet and those presented by Beals. Coffman asked Beals which drawings were most current and accurate. The set included in the agenda packet shows the proposed garage as rotation 90 degrees from the elevation that was presented. If accurate, a variance would not be needed for this request. Beals acknowledged there may be some confusion because of previous/existing plan sets; Beals noted that the plans included in the agenda packet represent the most-current version of the proposed plans. Chair Shuff also determined that the revised plans, with gabled roof facing east and west, would comply with the requirements and would no longer require a variance to be granted. That portion of the variance is no longer requested. Assistant Attorney Guin asked for verbal confirmation from staff that the eave height request was no longer being asked for nor considered; Applicant provided verbal confirmation. Coffman asked if the floor area computation was based on the old or current garage design; Beals indicated that it was based on the current garage plan. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for clarification that the current square footage is more than what is being proposed? Beals confirmed that as correct. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Gary Pritchard, 1637 Dogwood Ct., General Manager, Forge and Bow Dwellings, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Pritchard state d he was asked to present without much opportunity for preparation, and thus has decided to read the letter that was supplied by Jordan Oberman (March 9, 2023, Agenda, pg. 20). Pritchard also offered his own opinion that the existing garage was in such a dilapidated state that is was beyond repair, and that any attempt to repair would cost as much as new construction. During Pritchard’s comments, Attorney Guin asked Pritchard to describe his relationship with the applicant. Pritchard stated that he was the General Manager for For ge and Bow, contractor who is responsible for the project. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 Minutes – March 9, 2023 Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman commented that he sees this as falling under the nominal and inconsequential justification. The proposed garage would be slightly smaller than the existing structure, it meets gable height restrictions and setbacks, etc. Coffman w ould have no problem support the variance request. Vice-Chair Lawton agreed, referring to the unusable state of the current garage and the improvement represented by the proposed plans. Citing no negative consequences if built as proposed, Lawton stated he would be in support of this request. Commission member Carron agreed with previous comments, and noted that the new garage may also result in conditions that further the code equally well or better than existing conditions. Chair Shuff agreed with previous comments, noting that the variance on floor area does not represent a large increase, and is easy to approve. The eave height may have been harder to approve but is now a non-issue because of the revised plans. Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA220013 for the following reasons: approval of the increase in floor area for the lot and within the rear half of the lot is granted because the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the existing structure is greater in size; the proposed structure is located in the same location and maintains vehicle access from the alley. Therefore, the variance requests will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborho od, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Vogel, McCoy, Shuff, Carron Nays: Absent: San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA230001 Address: 4695 Hogan Dr. Owner: Laurie & Sean Morris Petitioner: Sam Rudkin, Contractor Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot side setback along the south property line. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that request may look familiar to some members, as it came before the Commission previously a few years ago. Due to unfortunate circumstances the construction was not able to be completed and permits subsequently expired. Now, the same request is before the Commission in order to complete the project. Beals described that the property is located on Hogan Dr, near the Southeast quadrant of Harmony and College. This neighborhood originally developed in the County, and was then annexed into the City. Based on existing lot sizes, it was zoned to the Urban Estate (U -E) zone district. By Code, that zone district requires larger lot sizes as well as larger setbacks. Many of the buildings did not meet the required side yard setback. In the U-E zone district, there is a requirement for a 25 -foot side yard setback; this request is to encroach 10 feet into that setback. The site plans show existing and proposed structures, and describe the 10 foot encroachment. There is also a basement window well labeled with a 10 foot setback, but that type of window is allowed to encroach and does not need to be considered as a part of this variance request. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 Minutes – March 9, 2023 Beals presented elevations of the property, noting the existing and proposed wall features as seen from both front and rear. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals if this request was exactly what was proposed last time? Beals responded that it would be best if the applicant answered that, but to his knowledge if it is not the exact same it is very close. Lawton asked if any letters received were regarding this property; staff indicated that one letter of support had been received for this request. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Sam Rudkin, 6440 E CR 44, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Rudkin explained the requested setback is the same as was previously requested. The previous contractor passed away before completing the project, and Rudkin is now finishing. The addition is potentially a bit different because Rudkin has updated the design, but the basic encroachment and dimensions are the same as previously approved. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Assistant Attorney Guin noted that the request is noted as 5 feet in the beginning of the Staff Report, but the application request for variance notes 10 feet. It is important that whatever the motion is, members of the Commission clarify how much of an encroachment may or may not be allowed. Chair Shuff commented that based on the site plans, it appears that a 25-foot setback is shown, with the building encroaching 10 feet, resulting in a 15-foot setback. Beals clarified that code requires a 20- foot side yard setback, rather than 25 feet. Thus, they are requesting a 5-foot total encroachment. Guin asked applicant Rudkin to clarify the dimensions of the request. Rudkin explained that the site plans are describing 25 feet to the edge of the house, not to the edge o f the setback. Shuff summarized that the 25-foot measurement shown is from the edge of the existing house to the property line, not the setback, and there is not really a dimension shown for the required setback. The required setback is 20 feet and the applicants are proposing a 15-foot setback (meaning a 5-foot encroachment). Commission member Coffman commented that he did not see any issue with the proposed encroachment; as seen in the aerial view of the property, many houses in this neighborhood are well within the 20 foot setback, so this is not out of context for the neighborhood. Coffman would be in favor of approving the variance. Commission member Vogel stated she would be favor of supporting the variance request, with the confirmation that the neighbor in support of the encroachment. Coffman noted that the house on the other side of the lot line is already encroaching into the subject property setback. Beals confirmed that as accurate. Shuff agreed, noting the addition is single story and smaller scale, with an existing neighborhood pattern of smaller setbacks due to the City annexing the area after construction. Shuff stated his support for the variance request. Vice-Chair Lawton offered his supporting, noting that the request had already been reviewed and approved, with little difference this time around. Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA230001 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.4(H) the variance request will not be detrimental to the public good; conditions from the last time the variance was approved have not changed , at least in relation to the 5-foot requested encroachment; the south addition will be setback Land Use Review Commission Page 5 Minutes – March 9, 2023 approximately the same distance as the building on the abutting lot. There fore, the variance 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 p urpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Vogel, McCoy, Shuff, Carron Nays: Absent: San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA230002 Address: 1316 Whedbee St. Owner: Patty Huntley/Steve Nelson Petitioner: Chris Gray, Architect Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(F)(1)(f) Project Description: This is a request to have a 0.25:12 roof pitch over the primary dwelling entry porch and attached garage. Minimum roof pitch is 2:12. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the applicant has provided a lot of detailed information further supporting their case, which is all included in the agenda packet. Not all of the materials will be presented in the staff presentation. Beals noted the property is near the corner of E Pitkin St and Whedbee St. Beals presented aerial photos of the property in the context of the neighborhood as well as zoomed in to the p roperty boundaries, noting that an inquiry was received that asked if a public sidewalk would be required to be installed with this project. Beals indicated that he then had a conversation with the Engineering Department, which indicated that they were not requesting that a public sidewalk be installed. There is a public sidewalk on the east side of the street, but no the west side. Beals explained presented existing and proposed site plans, noting the existing building will be demolished and a new residence in the lot. The request is to not have a roof pitch 2:12 for the entire house. There is a proposed L-shaped portion that would have an almost-flat pitch; the remaining majority of the roof area on the primary residence as well as a proposed accessory unit would all meet the minimum roof pitch of 2:12. When a new house is being built, the expectation is that it comes into full compliance with the code. Thus, a variance request is required if even a portion of the house does not meet the required roof pitch. The portions of the roof that are flat are up against the portions that are pitched, so it is less discernable that it is not meeting the requirements. When viewed from most directions, there will be a compliant element blocking the view of the non-compliant elements. Chair Shuff asked if code provided any differentiation requirement from the 2:12 minimum pitch for “accessory roofs” or percentage of roof. Beals confirmed that code only references a 2:12 roof pitch minimum and does not give an allowance for a new building to be non-compliant. Code does give exception to an existing house that has something less than a 2:12 roof pitch; a new addition could be built to match that. However, in the case of a new build, it is expected to meet the required minimu m. Vice-Chair Lawton noted there was a modification made from an earlier version, which showed a 1:12 pitch. After further discussion during the building permitting process, it was determined that a 2:12 minimum pitch was required and the design was changed t o conform with code, with a variance request submitted for the remaining portions being considered currently. Lawton asked if we were considering the accessory building as a portion of the request: Beals responded that the accessory building was already compliant. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 Minutes – March 9, 2023 Applicant Presentation: Applicant Chris Gray, Architect, confirmed Lawton’s statement that an earlier version of the design included a 1:12 roof pitch. After becoming aware of the 2:12 code requirement, Gray conferred with the home owners and they decided the best route was to have majority of the building conform to the code requirements as written, and to request a variance for the smaller secondary roofs. Gray offered a few additional points, noting that the owners want to build a home that fits within the neighborhood, hence the scale of the structure as a single-story dwelling. They really like the elements of flat roofs, which do show up in other homes within the neighborhood; Gray estimated it at 6% according to his analysis of the district. Therefore, the proposed design would be nominal and inconsequential when considered within the context of the neighborhood. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron commented that with the modification to 2:12 of the primary structure, the subordinate roof elements work well with the general design and architecture here. Carron does not see any problems with the proposal. Chair Shuff asked Beals to confirm if we had received letters of support for this item; Beals confirmed that two letters of support were received, and one inquiry was received that asked clarifying questions but did not state support or objection. Chris Gray noted that one of the letters of support was from a neighbor directly to the north of the subject property. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if the were any existing sidewalk? Beals confirmed there is not. Lawton stated that there is then no reason to require sidewalk, as it would not connect to any other existing portions. Beals added that Engineering Department can sometimes have a challenge when it comes to determining when best to require sidewalk installation, if it should be required piece be piece or to wait for a capital improvement project to install wholesale. Shuff offered his opinion, noting that if you look at the overall amount of roof that is to be flat, is represents a fairly small percentage. It integrates well with the rest of the architecture and the remaining main roof and accessory building roofs meet the requirements. Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA230002 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.4(H) the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the variance is for a portion of the building; the co mpliant roof can be seen from all sides of the building. Therefore, the variance requests 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: Coffman, Lawton, Vogel, McCoy, Shuff, Carron Nays: Absent: San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Assistant Attorney Guin notified the Commission that new Assistant City Attorney Chris Hayes will be advising the Land Use Review Commission moving forward. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 9:21am Meeting Minutes were approved unanimously at the April 13, 2023 LURC Regular Meeting. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 Minutes – March 9, 2023