The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/10/2023 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting 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 AUGUST 10, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Meeting Participation Participation in the Land Use Review Commission meeting on Thursday, August 10, 2023, will only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to nbeals@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com. Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Agenda – August 10, 2023 1. APPEAL ZBA230014 Address: 6520 Kyle Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Mauricio Aguilar Martinez Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) Project Description: This is a request to have a wall in front of the front building line that is seven feet tall. The maximum height for a wall in front of the front building line is four feet. Additionally, the wall will have four posts at the drive entrances; two that are nine feet tall and two that are twelve feet tall. 2. APPEAL ZBA230015 Address: 300 Clover Ln. Owner/Petitioner: Jeremy Wirth Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request for a garage addition to encroach 12 feet into the required 15-foot corner side setback. 3. APPEAL ZBA230016 Address: 1209 W Mountain Ave Owner: Rachel Olsen Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect, Studio S Architecture Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) & 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: There are two requests for this property: 1. Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 101 square feet. The maximum allowed for the lot is 3,150 square feet. 2. Request to exceed the maximum wall height on the west side of the building by 3 feet. The maximum wall height allowed based on the building setback from the west side property line is 22 feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 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: Fort Collins Senior Center Prairie Sage 1 Room 1200 Raintree Dr. 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 13, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of members Coffman and Vogel. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo to approve the May 11, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously by all members present. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -None- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA230010 Address: 3214 Burning Bush Ct Owner: Judith E. Pasek Petitioner: Randal A. Schroeder Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 3 feet 6 inches into the required 15-foot rear setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located in Burning Bush Court, and is an interior lot on a cul-de-sac. The request is to install an attached pergola at the rear of the residence. The pergola as designed would encroach into LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 the rear yard 15-foot setback. The northeast corner of the pergola would meet setback, but because the back of the property line is flared, this results in an encroachment, though the pergola is oriented parallel to the plane of the home. Staff have verified that no easements would be encroached upon at the rear of the property. There is a tree in the back yard, and the lot is angled – these may present hardship when attempting to meet the setback as required. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Judith E. Pasek, owner, 3214 Burning Bush Ct., noted the angle of the back property line makes the lot a bit shorter at the southwest corner. The 15-foot setback comes within 7 feet of the back of the house, though they need at least 10 feet to accommodate patio furniture on the back deck. The pergola then needs to extend a bit further past the edge of the deck, hence the request for a 3.5- foot encroachment. Public Comment: -None- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron feels the hardship is well illustrated within the submitted site plan based on the skew of the rear lot line. The requested encroachment appears to be nominal and inconsequential, and no impact would be created on encroachments. Commission member San Filippo agrees with comments offered by Carron, noting the plan is well developed and acknowledging the hardships present that cannot be abated, and would be in favor of supporting the application. Commission member McCoy supports the application as presented. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA230010 for the following reasons: the variance is request is not detrimental to the public good; by reason of the exceptional condition due to the rear-yard setback, creates a hardship that is not by fault of the applicant. The request does not diverge from the land use code except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the Land Use Code purposes. Yeas: Lawton, San Filippo, Shuff, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA230011 Address: 829 W Mountain Ave. Owner: JD Padilla Petitioner: Jordan Lockner, Collab Architecture Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5) Project Description: This is a request for 3 variances: 1) Request to exceed the floor area of an accessory building with habitable space by 791.10 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet. 2)Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 474.99 square feet. The maximum allowed based on lot size is 2696.4 square feet. 3) Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the rear half of the lot by 487.10 square feet. The maximum allowed based on lot size is 904 square feet. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is at the corner of W Mountain Ave and Washington St. The request is to add more square footage to the accessory building on the backside of the lot, which has alley access. Beals presented the site plan, noting the primary building is under some renovation right now; the variance request is limited only to the rear accessory building. The current accessory building is one-story. The request is to remove the roof and build habitable space on top of the garage space. This would effectively double the floor area of the existing accessory building. The property currently exceeds the allowable floor area for the lot and for the rear half. In this zone district an accessory building is allowed a maximum floor area of 600 square feet. The property currently exceeds all three standards that they are seeking variances from. Beals presented pictures of the property as it is currently, noting the current renovation work and describing the existing rear accessory building as it appears from both street and alley-side views. Commission member McCoy asked Beals if the setbacks are met by the existing building? Beals noted the building appears to meet the 5-foot setback according to survey. An existing fence may not meet setbacks but can’t be determined from the plans. Chair Shuff summarized the request as a plan to build on top of the existing one-story building, but no plans other than a site plan have been submitted. Therefore, Shuff can assume that the plan does not attempt to meet the habitable space provision with ceiling heights lower than 7 feet 6 inches. This would allow for habitable space above the garage without counting against total square footage. Beals clarified that plans state the ceiling height will be 8 feet, so all floor area would be counted. Applicant Presentation: Cathy Mathis, TB Group, and Jordan Lockner, architect addressed the Commission and offered comment. Mathis stated that the intent of the building is to create a second family living suite above the existing garage. Mathis explained that the first variance request they are seeking has to do with total allowable floor area. Based on lot size and floor area calculation, the proposed structure would exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 714 square feet. The allowed maximum is 2,448 square feet. Mathis explained that their justification for the request is that it is nominal and inconsequential; the floor area maximum is exceeded by only 714 square feet. The primary structure was built in 1900 and remodeled in 1999 and is an existing structure with no plans for expansion. The proposed second floor addition above the garage maintains the existing garage footprint as well as maintaining the original character of the existing building. Regarding the second variance request, Mathis explained that they are requesting to exceed the allowable area for the rear of the lot by 476 square feet; code allows for a maximum of 904 square feet. As justification, the original garage space does not provide adequate size or space for the addition of the family guest suite. The request to exceed the allowable floor area would again maintain the existing garage footprint while maintaining the character of the existing building. Continuing to request three, regarding habitable space, Mathis explained that a maximum of 600 square feet is allowed for structures behind a street-facing primary structure. The current garage is already over that maximum as it is 690 square feet. The proposed construction of the second level would add an additional 690 on top of the existing garage floor plan. Jordan Lockner, Collab architecture, addressed the Commission and noted that his firm is helping with the project. Lockner presented quick renderings of elevations and design concepts. Lockner explained that not all elevations and design plans have been dialed in, and thus were omitted from the submitted materials so as not to introduce incomplete materials and findings. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Lockner explained that all three variance requests are tied to the same issues; the design as proposed is an attempt to maintain historical character and footprint and keep original rooflines w/ multiple hiplines. Lockner gave precedent examples of property renovations within the last ten years in the neighborhood. Lockner presented multiple slides with examples of properties in the neighborhood that appear to have structures that would have required variance and/or are non-conforming. The next- door neighbor has a very similar structure in the rear, which may have had to address the same three variances. Many of the examples appear to have bonus space above the garage that exceeds the maximum as put forth by code. Lockner ended his presentation by offering some key points. The project attempts to maintain the historical character and integrity, while acknowledging what Lockner describes as a lack of space to accommodate a family within the existing footprint. The proposed accessory building would provide the necessary additional space. The additional bedroom would be used to accommodate guests. Lockner stated that the space is not intended to function as a separate rental space, but instead a continuation of the living space of the primary home. There are no plans for expansion of the existing home – all current renovations will result in interior renovation and code updates. Vice-Chair Lawton asked what, if any, utilities are planned for the habitable space? Lockner stated the plan is for a bedroom with associated bathroom and living room/wet bar. This will require electric, water, and sewer. Commission member San Filippo stated that he was puzzled by the statements made that there are no plans for expansion of the primary residence, as it appears that a significant expansion is being added to the rear of the property. Lockner responded that this is NOT an expansion, and all renovations to the primary home are contained within the existing footprint. Lockner further stated that this is a former meth house which required taking many walls down to the studs. During this process, the contractor noted other issues with insulation, etc. and is installing larger walls but not changing the existing floorplan. San Filippo pushed for clarity, stating the roofline in the rear has been changed to meet the current code. Lockner noted trusses were taken off for structural integrity, and new trusses will be added that meet code. Shuff stated that an addition that was put on in the 1990’s and that is being re-done as well. Carron summarized Lockner’s testimony by describing the renovation as a complete gut/re-build within the existing shell. Lockner confirmed, noting that only interior renovations within the shell of the existing structure are taking place. Due to the presence of black mold and rot in some areas, entire walls and trusses are having to be replaced, and are being constructed in the same locations as the original elements. Shuff asked if any examination had been given to building ceiling heights that complied with code, which would not require a variance request. Shuff’s house is one of the examples given, and he stated that because his ceilings are lower than 7 feet 6 inches and thus the floor area was not counted. Lockner stated that the homeowner wanted the space to be congruent with the primary house and not feel like an “attic” space. The homeowners have pushed for and requested an 8-foot ceiling; they may be open to a conversation about lowering ceilings to 7 feet 6 inches, which would alleviate the need for variance requests. Beals stated that this is the first time that elevations have been seen by staff. It appears the described eave height along the side property line would not be allowed under current code and would require another (fourth) variance request. That request would need to be noticed publicly and heard separately. Beals explained the intent of the eave height restrictions is to reduce the height of accessory structures and keep them subordinate to the primary structure, while also reducing the impact they may have on neighboring properties. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Lockner asked Beals for clarification regarding the need to adjust the eave height. Beals clarified that the eave heights along the side interior property line need to be brought down to 13 feet. When that code is followed, it also makes it easier to follow ceiling height requirements. Shuff noted that there is a dormer exemption for the 13-foot required eave height, which presents some nuance into how that code can be applied. It may be a way to achieve square footage within code. Lockner asked if there is any language concerning relationships between primary and secondary structures? Are there any concerns if the design were to go away from the hip-style roofing? Beals noted that the Land Use Code does not contain that language. Additionally, Beals acknowledges that we did not post for the variance request (eave height), so would need to be heard at a later date. Chris Hayes, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the only issues before the Commission today are the three variances noticed for this hearing, and any additional variance requests would need to be newly noticed and heard at a later date. San Filippo asked if the applicants would be amenable to tabling the application today, to provide more time and perhaps a revised variance request that may include the fourth variance request regarding eave height? Lockner stated he can’t speak on behalf of the owner, but tabling the item may be the best option so as not to re-apply and re-pay new application fees. Lockner also stated that the owners do not want to push any more fees or designs until they have clarity regarding what they can and cannot do. Mathis indicated that she was texting with the owner to ask if they would like to table the requests or achieve a final determination from the Commission during the present hearing. She asked Beals to summarize the current conversation in order to relay the basic information to the owners. Beals stated that there is a need for a fourth variance (eave height) if the applicants were to continue with the current design request. The Commission is asking if the applicants would like to table their current requests until a later date, at which time the revised application could include the fourth variance request. The other option would be for the Commission to continue discussion today on the three variance requests, and if there is a need to continue with a design with an eave height over 13 feet the applicants would need to come before the Commission again with a new application and variance request. Chair Shuff stated it is hard to support the request as currently presented, as there may be other design methods/options that could more easily meet the code without variance. The intent of the code is to mitigate looming structures and massing on the rear of properties, and to maintain the secondary structure as subordinate to the primary residence. Mathis commented that the owner is asking if this can be figured out by the interior trussing of the garage. Shuff answered that there is still the issue of eave height, which luckily is only an issue on one side. That part of the building might need a stepped-down roof; that’s an analysis that will need to be performed in the re-design phase. Lawton stated this is a bit of “déjà vu” based on the last meeting. Even if ceiling height is lowered, eave height necessitates a re-design to come into compliance. If the eave height lowered to 13 feet and ceiling height is lowered, then no variances would be required, and a permit could be pulled. Lockner asked the Commission for recommendations to integrate a hip roof and 13-foot eaves? Shuff stated that the design may need a step in the hipline, but the Commission’s role is not to prescribe design to applicants. Shuff asked the applicants if they would like to table the item, and explained that if the item is tabled today, it can be re-heard at the August or September meeting without any additional fees or applications. If a motion is made today, that decision will be final. Lockner and Mathis both agreed that tabling the item would be the best path forward at this point. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Carron asked if next month, this application may be amended to reduce eave height at address other elements. There is also a possibility that if eave heights are reduced and ceiling heights lowered to conform with code, the design may no longer need variance requests. Lawton confirmed this to be accurate. Beals indicated that we did receive public comment via email, but we will not read that in to record today as we did not reach public comment prior to tabling the item. Those comments will be incorporated into the agenda packet materials if/when the item is returned to the agenda. Chris Hayes suggested that because the eave height issue was not on today’s agenda, any motion made during this meeting ought to steer clear of referencing issues that were not explicitly noticed on today's agenda. Commission member Lawton, seconded by San Filippo, moved to table ZBA230011 in order to give the applicant more time for consideration of design changes that may place the project within code. Yeas: Lawton, San Filippo, Shuff, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED 3. APPEAL ZBA230012 Address: 2843 Mercy Dr Owner/Petitioner: Josh Cornish Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 5 feet into the 15-foot corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at corner of Mercy Ct and Mercy Dr. The request is to build a covered porch on the front side. The porch would encroach into the side street-side setback, with a request to build 5 feet into the required 15-foot side setback. In this case, the property line is approximately 3-4 behind the back of sidewalk, creating approximately 14-15 feet of setback from the back of sidewalk to the proposed structure. The proposed structure is stepped down from the existing porch and would be open on three sides and fully covered by a roof. There is a large tree on the corner that would obstruct the street view of the proposed structure. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if traffic engineers had performed a sight triangle check? Beals confirmed traffic engineering has ensured that no obstruction to the sight triangle would be created. Applicant Presentation: Josh Cornish, 2843 Mercy Dr, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Cornish stated a few reasons why the variance request is being submitted: under code, there is not adequate space for the proposed porch if setback is met; the proposed porch will further differentiate their home from others with the same design in the neighborhood; the proposed porch would useful outdoor space; the porch would lessen water usage in flower beds that are currently not being utilized. Lastly, the proposed porch not only adds value to the home but will help to strengthen community and neighbor engagement when used as a meeting space. Cornish provided pictures of the existing site as well as proposed design plans and elevations. Cornish described the proposed design, noting that it would begin with a poured concrete slab, onto which 6 x 6-inch posts would be secured. The posts would be topped with a shingled roof and partial wood pergola on the left. This hybrid roof system allows for an existing window to be opened and used. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Cornish also noted that with the 1.5-foot overhang of roof of the roof edge would maintain a 6-inch gap between roof edge and existing easement. Commission member Carron asked for the total height of the porch plus concrete slab. Cornish answered that total height is 9 feet (2 feet slab and 7-foot roof height.) Cornish noted the slab height is pretty close to the existing height of the flower bed, for visual reference. Vice-Chair Lawton noted that from the back edge of sidewalk to the proposed edge of the porch is about 13 feet. That is pretty close to the required 15-foot setback required at this type of corner lot. Public Comment: -None- Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff began discussion by expressing his appreciation for the great applicant presentation and visuals. Shuff commented that he feels it is a reasonable request, no detriment to public good and nominal/inconsequential. The large tree on the corner of the lot helps to lighten visual impact, and structure is “light” visually. Carron commented that the proposal seems to be a good use of existing pad and space and is appreciative of the sloping roof to minimize visual impact and respect for intent of code. Commission member McCoy stated that he supports the request. Commission member San Filippo commented the application overcomes the cures of the corner lot. The property is well inside the lot lines and poses no impact to the corner sight triangle. The overall effect is that at 15-foot setback is still maintained. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230012 for the following reasons: the variance is request is not detrimental to the public good; 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: Lawton, San Filippo, Shuff, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA230013 Address: 219 Park St Owner/Petitioner: Nicholas Michaelson Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 1 foot 6 inches into the 5-foot rear setback. Staff Presentation: (57:00) Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is an interior lot near the corner of Laporte Ave and Park St. The property is accessed by an alley of the rear yard. The request is to allow an existing structure to encroach into rear and side setbacks. Site plans were submitted with building permit application, and the plans described a7-foot setback of the rear and 5-feet of the side. The permit was issued, and the building was eventually constructed to be 3.5 feet from both the side and rear property lines. Beals stated the permit was pulled in 2020 and is waiting for finalization. These encroachments were discovered during final permit inspections. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Commission member San Filippo asked to review the photographs of the structure, to confirm which portion is encroaching. Beals confirmed the portion of the structure with the blue door is the element which encroaches into the setback. Carron asked for the total height of the structure; Beals confirmed that the tallest point is 11 feet 7 inches; thus, a building permit was required. While that portion is not encroaching, it is connected to the portion that is. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Nick Michaelson, 219 Park Street, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Michaelson offered some historical background for the project, noting that the project began when a sewer line needed fixing. During that excavation, Michaelson’s wife determined that she wanted a greenhouse in the backyard, and asked the contractor who was performing the sewer work to dig a pit for a heat sink intended for a greenhouse. The ensuing structure began on a whim and has become more than what was originally planned. Code and setbacks were not at the front of mind at all. The existing garage currently sits 1.5 feet from the property line, as built in 1929. Michaelson explained the greenhouse structure was constructed using materials sourced from other job sites’ surplus. The original site plan was submitted without knowledge of code/building requirements. The city then notified owners that a permit and variances is required. COVID set the process back significantly to achieve all necessary reviews and signoffs. During final inspection, the Building Inspector stated a permit could not be completed until variances were obtained. Regarding justification, Michaelson posited that it could be considered nominal and inconsequential as it does not overhang the property line and is partially obscured from the adjacent property by the presence of a large tree. The structure fits the character of the surrounding neighborhood and does not pose a detriment to adjacent property. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that he was unclear with the differences between the submitted building plan and the structure that was actually built. Michaelson explained that when he originally took measurements, he measured from the edge of mulched area adjacent to the alley, rather than the actual lot line. That resulted in a difference of approximately 3 feet between measured and actual property lines. Public Comment: -None- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron began discussion, stating his opinion that his is a fun greenhouse project, and seems to fit the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. The lower heights of the side elements help to support the argument of nominal and inconsequential within the fabric of Old Town. Commission member San Filippo commented this request concerns a self-imposed hardship, in which the applicants are now coming forward asking for forgiveness. The fact that no neighbors are speaking against this proposal, and in fact are in support of the request, is commendable. The structure fits the nature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the request for variance is supported. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that if this request had come before the Commission prior to building, it would probably have been required to meet the 5-foot setback. However, the project was developed without malice, is in character with the surrounding neighborhood and is nominal and inconsequential. Lawton is in favor of supporting the request. Commission member McCoy agreed with comments offered by other Commission members and is in support of the variance request. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 DRAFT MINUTES – July 13, 2023 Chair Shuff offered his agreement with the Commission’s previous statements, adding that the scale of the structure against fence is similar to other accessory structures in the area. Shuff has no problem supporting the variance as presented. Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230013 for the following reasons: the variance is request is not detrimental to the public good; 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: Lawton, San Filippo, Shuff, Carron, McCoy Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS -Land Use Code is still going through update process. The proposed updated code changes will be before Council on July 31st during Work Session. Additionally, a Public Open House is also scheduled for August 9th. -The Land Use Review Commission will meet next month; we currently have at least two items for next month’s agenda. -Land Use Review Commission August meeting planned to return to Council Chambers -Draft revised Land Use Code is anticipated to be published to the City’s website in August. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48am. Agenda Item 1 Item #1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 10, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 6520 Kyle Avenue Owner/Petitioner: Mauricio Aguilar Martinez Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(1) Variance Request: This is a request to have a wall in front of the front building line that is seven feet tall. The maximum height for a wall in front of the front building line is four feet. Additionally, the wall will have four posts at the drive entrances; two that are nine feet tall and two that are twelve feet tall. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 2006 part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase 3. Prior to annexation the property was platted in 1992 part of the Hansen MRD S-91-87 subdivision. The primary building was brought to the site in 1978. Fence and wall restrictions are to promote attractive and safe neighborhoods. Tall fences in the front yard prevent visual transparency of the public street and sidewalk. Traditionally, complete privacy is reserved for side and rear yards. In the past taller fences in the front yard have been requested for the front yard because it is part of animal pasture. Though these fences are taller, they still maintain transparency. The construction of the subject wall started prior to the request for a building permit and this variance. During construction the property owner was notified of such requirements. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval of a taller wall height in the front yard limited to 5 feet and 6 feet for the columns: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • There are not other tall front yard walls in the neighborhood. • A 5ft wall height allows for visual connection to the street. 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 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a 5-foot tall wall for APPEAL ZBA240014. Agenda Item 2 Item #2 - Page 2 STAFF REPORT August 10, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 300 Clover Lane Owner: Kelli Wirth Petitioner: Jeremy Wirth Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Variance Request: This is a request for a garage addition to encroach 12 feet into the required 15-foot corner side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1954 part of the Northwest Consolidated annexation. Later in 1961 it was platted into a residential lot part of the Northwest subdivision. The primary building was constructed into 1965. The original include 42 residential lots. Out of these 42 lots only 3 are a unique shape. The subject property is one of the 3 that are not rectangular but taper in from the front of the lot to the rear of the lot. Additionally, since the property was developed in 1954 the public sidewalk was constructed 15ft away from the property line. This larger public right way has not been needed for additional street or sidewalk infrastructure and has been used and maintained as additional yard space by the property owner. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The shape of lot is unique to the subdivision and the shape of the lot results in undue hardship not caused by the applicant. • The 15 ft setback of the sidewalk from the property line provides a similar setback. 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 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA240015. Agenda Item 3 Item #3 - Page 3 STAFF REPORT August 10, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1209 W Mountain Avenue Owner: Rachel Olsen Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect, Studio S Architecture Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) & 4.7(E)(4) Variance Request: There are two requests for the property: 1. Request to exceed the maximum floor area for the allowed lot by 101 square feet. The maximum allowed for the lot is 3,150 square feet. 2. Request to exceed the maximum wall height of on the west side of the building by 3 feet. The maximum wall height allowed based on the building setback from the west side property line is 22 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City part of the Scott Sherwood addition and platted at the same time in 1907. The primary building was constructed later in 1923. The proposed addition focuses on retaining most of the existing structure. The addition is on the rear and increase in height from the existing structure. The 101 square feet increase approximately adds to the closet spaces of the new rooms being proposed. The allowable floor area in the N-C-L zone district increases in size as a lot increases. The proposed addition does not cross the rear half of the property and is built entirely in the front half of the lot. The required wall is based on the setback from the side property line. At the minimum 5ft setback the wall height is 18ft. Additional setback allows the wall height to increase. The proposed structure is setback an additional 2ft. Even with the increase the proposed gable extends 3 ft. This increase is the tip of the triangle shape of the gable. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The additional 101 square foot is visually indiscernible from a proposal that meets the standard. • The increase wall height is triangle tip of the gable end of wall. • The increased wall height does not face north. 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 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA240016. and reviewed by the Building Department separately. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Review Commission shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Commission may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Land Use Review Commission may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, City Hall Council Chambers (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Monday prior to the hearing) Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Choose One from List Representative’s Address Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature Building Code requirements will be determined 1209 W. Mountain Avenue Heidi Shuff Architect 715 W. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins (970) 231-1040 heidi@studio-s-arch.com 80521 Rachel Olsen #1- 4.7(D)(2), #2- 4.7(E)(4) NCL #1- nominal & inconsequential #2- equally well or better than July 11, 2023 n/a ϳϭϱt͘DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞŶƵĞ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϭ :ƵůǇϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ ŝƚǇŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ >ĂŶĚhƐĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ϮϴϭE͘ŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ Z͗sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨŽƌϭϮϬϵt͘DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞŶƵĞ dŽtŚŽŵ/ƚDĂǇŽŶĐĞƌŶ͗ KŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨŵǇĐůŝĞŶƚ͕ZĂĐŚĞůKůƐĞŶ͕/ĂŵƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚǁŽǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚhƐĞ ŽĚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĂŶĞǁϭ͕ϰϬϬ^&ϭЪƐƚŽƌǇĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞďĂĐŬŽĨŚĞƌĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞĂƚ ϭϮϬϵt͘DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞŶƵĞ͘ dŚĞĨŝƌƐƚǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞŝƐƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϮͿŽĨƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͕ƚŽĂůůŽǁĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ϭϬϭƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚŽĨĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚ͘/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶůŽƚĂƌĞĂǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚ ĚŝǀĞƌŐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĞǆĐĞƉƚŝŶĂŶŽŵŝŶĂů͕ŝŶĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƚŝĂůǁĂǇǁŚĞŶ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨϭϬϭ^&ŝƐŽŶůǇĂϯ͘ϮйŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞĂƌĞĂĂůůŽǁĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚǁŽĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚĂĐĐĞƐƐŽƌǇƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ ǁŚŝĐŚƚŽƚĂůϳϬϴ^&ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞǇǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶ;ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞǇ͛ƌĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͕ƚŚĞ ƐŵĂůůĞƌŽŶĞͲĐĂƌŐĂƌĂŐĞďĞŝŶŐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚŽƚŚĞŚŽŵĞͿ͕ďƵƚĂĚĚƚŽƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞĨůŽŽƌ ĂƌĞĂŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌϱϬйŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚǁŝůůƐƚŝůůďĞŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͕ĂƐƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚĞǆƚĞŶĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚ͘ dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞŝƐƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϰͿŽĨƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͕ƚŽĂůůŽǁĂƐŵĂůů ƚƌŝĂŶŐůĞĂƚƚŚĞƉĞĂŬŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐĂďůĞĚŽƌŵĞƌŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĞǆĐĞĞĚ ƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĂůůŽǁĂďůĞǁĂůůŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨϮϮ͛ͲϮ͟;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĂůů͛Ɛϳ͛Ͳϭ͟ƐĞƚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞͿ͘/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐĂďůĞĚŽƌŵĞƌǁŽƵůĚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƚŚĞ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĞƋƵĂůůǇǁĞůůŽƌďĞƚƚĞƌƚŚĂŶǁŽƵůĚĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁŚŝĐŚĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͘dŚĞ ŐŽĂůŝƐƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐĐĂůĞŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚͲĨůŽŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂƐůŽǁĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞƐŽƚŚĂƚŝƚďůĞŶĚƐĂƐ ƐĞĂŵůĞƐƐůǇĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĐĂůĞŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌǇƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƚǁŽďĞĚƌŽŽŵƐǁŝƚŚĞŐƌĞƐƐǁŝŶĚŽǁŽŶƚŚĞŶĞǁƐĞĐŽŶĚĨůŽŽƌ͘/͛ǀĞŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞĐŽĚĞ͕ďƵƚ ǁŚŝĐŚǁŽƵůĚďĞŵƵĐŚŵŽƌĞŵĂƐƐŝǀĞŝŶƐĐĂůĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĞŐƌĞƐƐǁŝŶĚŽǁƐŝŶƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁĞƐƚďĞĚƌŽŽŵ͘/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇƐĐĂůĞĚďĂĐŬƌŽŽĨŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽƉƚŝŽŶŝƐ ŵƵĐŚŵŽƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŝŶƐŝǌĞ͕ƐĐĂůĞΘŵĂƐƐŝŶŐƚŽďŽƚŚƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŚŽƵƐĞΘǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚ ŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ;ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇǁŚĞŶǀŝĞǁĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚͿ͘ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůǇ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚĞĚǁĂůů ŚĞŝŐŚƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞĚŽƌŵĞƌǁŽƵůĚĐĂƐƚƐŵĂůůĞƌƐŚĂĚŽǁƐŽŶƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĂƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐŽĚĞͲĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚĞŽƉƚŝŽŶ͘ ŝƚǇŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ >ĂŶĚhƐĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ :ƵůǇϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ WĂŐĞϮ dŚĂŶŬͶǇŽƵĨŽƌǇŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕ ,ĞŝĚŝ^ŚƵĨĨ ^ƚƵĚŝŽ^ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͕>> WŚŽŶĞ͗ϵϳϬ͘Ϯϯϭ͘ϭϬϰϬ ĞͲŵĂŝů͗ŚĞŝĚŝΛƐƚƵĚŝŽͲƐͲĂƌĐŚ͘ĐŽŵ 02817$,1$9(18( $//(<5($5<$5'6(7%$&.)5217<$5'6(7%$&.(;679,) 6) 6725<(;,67,1* +286( 6) (;,67,1* *$5$*( 6) (;,67,1* *$5$*( (4(4 6) 6725< $'',7,21 1(: &29(5(' 3$7,2 QHZZLQGRZ ZHOOIRUHJUHVV 2:1(5 *$5'(1 3URSHUW\$GGUHVV:0RXQWDLQ$YH 3URSHUW\2ZQHU5DFKHO2OVHQ 2ZQHU V3KRQH 3DUFHO1R /HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ/27%/.6&2776+(5:22')7& =RQLQJ'LVWULFW1&/ 6XEGLYLVLRQ6&2776+(5:22' 1HLJKERUKRRG 6HWEDFNV )URQW<DUG)HHW 5HDU<DUG)HHW)HHWIRUJDUDJH 6LGH<DUG)HHW /RW6L]H6)¶ZLGH[¶GHHS )ORRU$UHD5DWLR6)6) 6) 6) 3URSRVHG)ORRU$UHD ([LVWLQJ)LUVW)ORRU6) 3URSRVHG)LUVW)ORRU$GGLWLRQ6) 3URSRVHG6HFRQG)ORRU$GG¶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rom:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: Appeal ZBA2300016, 1209 W Mountain Date:Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:21:01 AM From: mryan <Mike.Ryan@colostate.edu> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:06 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA2300016, 1209 W Mountain Noah, We are neighbors across the alley from this property. I am writing in support of the variance application. Both the additional height for the peaked addition roof and for the additional 101 square feet seem to me to be a reasonable request for this property. The addition is very nicely designed and will have the advantage of replacing the current low covered, screened-in porch with a much nicer looking building. Neither will have any impact on our enjoyment of our property, nor on the neighborhood as a whole. Many thanks, Mike — Mike Ryan Mike.ryan@colostate.edu