Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 11/09/2023Ian 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 NOVEMBER 9, 2023 8:30 AM CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of member Carron. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the October 12, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was approved; Chair Shuff abstained. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) NONE- APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA230022 Address: 4154 Tanager St Owner/Petitioner: Jesus Garcia Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to build an 8-foot fence along the side property lines. The maximum height for a fence along the side yard is 6 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is at the corner of Tanager and Troutman, on the west side of the MAX Line, railroad, and ditch features. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINTUES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 The request is for an 8-foot fence along the north and south property lines. The request is for the fence to begin at the front of the property line and end at the rear property line, with 8-foot fences proposed on both north and south sides. During staff investigation of this property, it was found to be possible that the south fence line is not on the property line but may be in the public right of way. Any decision made today may only be made in regard to features placed within the private property lines. If the applicant wanted to pursue vacating the right of way with the City, that would be a different process. A true survey of the property could determine if the fence is within the property; staff recommendations are based off of the plat and plans currently available. Aerial views show a high volume of bike and pedestrian traffic utilizing the nearby trails and adjacent underpass. The fence would be installed as a means of increasing privacy; extra privacy is also desired for the backyard hot tub currently in place. As proposed, the existing 6-foot fence would be topped with 2-feet panels of latticework; under current code, the latticework element is considered opaque. The issue with the property line is thus – a fence over 6-feet will require a building permit, which cannot be issued if the fence is in the public right of way. Any decisions made today are done so with the assumption that the fence is within the property lines and not on public right of way. Photographs of the property show a current construction project and screening elements related to boring work happening within the public right of way. Normally the view would show the property lines as it transitions to the road dead-end and landscaped area adjacent to public right of way. Vice-Chair Lawton asked to clarify the status of the fence on the south side of the property. Beals commented that it is highly likely, based on aerial views, that the fence is within the public right of way. Only a survey could accurately determine this. Commission member San Filippo asked if the driveway in photos is also within the public right of way. Beals noted it the area in question may be used for RV and tool/equipment storage. That area may indeed encroach into the public right of way. Chair Shuff asked if the applicant could pursue a right of way use permit for portions of the south fence? Beals responded that a right of way use permit could not be issued for a structure or other permanent features that require a building permit. Applicant Presentation: APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT** Public Comment: Audience member Charles Heinzmann, 4143 Tanager, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Heinzmann noted that they live across the street from the subject property. Heinzmann made a point to acknowledge the high volume of transient activity in the area, which has not been mentioned/addressed. The nearby detention pond, trails, and transportation center draw that population. According to Heinzmann, applicant Garcia has been a good neighbor and has upgraded property, and experienced multiple instances of transients climbing over the fence and entering the property. The City of Fort Collins has been made aware, including the Police Department, though no action has been taken. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman commented that he does not see any problem with the proposed fence; the issue of whether or not it is in the public right of way is not up to this Commission. Additionally, the proposed lattice work seems to be attractive. Commission member San Filippo agreed that the proposed lattice work is attractive, and there would not be anticipated to be a noticeable effect on the neighbors at 4148 Tanager. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 Vice-Chair Lawton noted that he has walked this area several times; it is a high-traffic area due to the proximity of the Mason Trail. Additionally, Lawton acknowledged that there was some concern stated in the applicant’s application mentioning their dog’s ability to jump over the existing fence. The proposed lattice work is nice-looking and would be an appropriate solution. Chair Shuff stated he would be in support of the request; approval could be justified with nominal and inconsequential and/or hardship standards. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230022 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the 2- foot extension is semi-transparent; the 2-foot extension occurs along public right of way to the south, and to the north along a neighbors’ house that has limited windows. 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 Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy Nays: Absent: Carron THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA230023 Address: 1147 Laporte Ave Owner/Petitioner: Chris LaBerge Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 4.5 feet into the required 5-foot side 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 Pearl St and Laporte Ave. The request is to build a new garage attached to the primary building. There is an existing garage and a canopy acting as a carport. Both would be removed and replaced with the proposed structure. The existing garage is not actually attached to the primary structure, but the two structures are very close to one another. To note – the properties to the east were one lot at one point in time; that has since been split in two, with a primary building on each. Currently, there is an accessory building that now splits those lots as well as encroaches into the required side setback. The neighboring property to the west faces Laporte Ave and thus also has a 5-foot setback along the shared property line. The property on the back end of the corner, which faces Pearl St, requires a 15- foot rear yard setback along the shared property line. Beals explained that any time a non-conforming structure is self-demolished, it is the responsibility of the property owner to build any new buildings to the current standard. In this case, because the subject property has a non-conforming garage encroaching into the side setback, self-demoing that building would require any new structure be built to the required 5-foot side setback. Based on the submitted application, the proposed structure would be attached to the primary structure and be placed less than one foot from the side property line. Beals showed elevations of the proposed structure, noting the street-facing and rear-yard facing sides. Images of the rear property show an existing fence; Beals noted the fence is not located on the property line. Beals noted the driveway present on the property, explaining that when it was originally platted there was an alley. That alley has been vacated, and now there is no public access on that driveway, and it Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 is considered a private drive. Half of the alley went to properties along the north, and half went to properties on the south. The only public access that is maintained is for utilities access. It is unclear if all of the properties who enjoy that driveway have a private access agreement between themselves. It appears obvious from aerial images it is used and shared between the four adjacent properties. Chair Shuff asked how the alley was shared when vacated – was 10 feet given to those on the north and 10 feet to those on the south? It appears that there are no disputes amongst the neighbors. Beals indicated that the city is not aware of any disputes; there is a curb cut for utilities access, which the City maintains. Beals clarified the request here is only for side-setback encroachment, not rear. Commission member McCoy asked why property lines were not adjusted when the alley was vacated? Beals responded that it may have occurred when the previous multi-family development to the east occurred. Commission member San Filippo asked if there is anything keeping the subject property from accessing the rear of their property via the driveway? Beals responded that he is not legal counsel and can’t speak to their specific agreements regarding driveway use. In other similar situations, we would expect to see a private agreement detailing access amongst the neighboring properties. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for confirmation that as proposed, all vehicle access to the garage would be from Laporte Ave. Beals confirmed that as designed, all vehicle access to the proposed garage structure would occur off of Laporte Ave. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Coree Sullivan, Windsor, CO, addressed the Commission and provided comments, noting property owner Chris LaBerge was not able to attend the hearing. Sullivan stated the applicants are not interested in changing much of the back of the property. The bottom line is that the desire is to pull the existing garage up and maintain the current footprint with the new structure. The proposed deck feature will not have a stairway down, as it will be constructed at ground level. The property would be improved by constructing the proposed garage with a firewall adjacent to the house as well as the west side. The existing awning at the front would be removed, and the roofline would be extended from the primary home at the same slope as current. Per Sullivan, the applicants are expecting a baby in January, and would like to be able to access the garage more easily. The garage was built in 1930, and over time fumes have accumulated in the garage that could potentially pose a health risk to applicant Chris LaBerge, who is a former Marine and has previous chemical exposure and sensitivity to odors. New cement would help to alleviate this. The existing driveway from the side door location onwards would not change. The proposed garage would stay within the current footprint. Chair Shuff asked what Sullivan to clarify their relationship to the applicant. Sullivan responded she is a friend who was asked to represent the property owner in their absence. Commission member San Filippo asked Sullivan if she lives in any of the surrounding properties. Sullivan responded that she did not. Public Comment: NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy asked staff if any public comment had been received regarding this appeal. Beals confirmed that none was received. Commission member Coffman acknowledged the previous discussion that had touched on whether or not the applicants were able to access the property from the rear driveway. Coffman stated there are Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 two obstacles to that: 1) we don’t know if they have any kind of shared access agreement or other legal agreement for access; 2) there appears to be large mature trees along the back side of the lot that may need to be taken out if proposed access point is changed. Regarding the proposed garage location, Coffman noted that we the 5-foot side setback requirement is in place to maintain access around buildings. If the variance was approved, there would still be restricted access, but it does seem that approval would be an improvement to the property; access could be maintained; fire rating would be increased. Pending additional discussion, Coffman is in support. Commission member McCoy agrees with Coffman. Leaving the current non-conforming garage is not as good as the new structure, which would be built to current building codes. In the rear, it may not be feasible to get access because of the convoluted nature of the property lines. Commission member San Filippo stated he did have some problems with application. San Filippo recently walked through the area for information gathering, and the proposed proximity of the garage to 113 Pearl St. gives him pause. The subject property is a very deep lot, and San Filippo sees no reason why garage could not be placed in the rear of the lot with full compliance. The applicants could have also explored further the possibility of access from the driveway and could have worked to attain an access agreement for rear-access to a garage. At this point, San Filippo stated he is not in favor of supporting the application and noted the potential fire danger created with only a half-foot side setback. Assistant City Attorney Chris Hayes provided counsel, suggesting that the commission ought to afford the applicant or their representative a chance to respond to the observations and claims of San Filippo’s site visit, as they were not part of the presentation. Applicant representative Sullivan responded, noting the homeowner’s proposal is an attempt to maintain character of the neighborhood. To the best of Sullivan’s knowledge, the applicants have not sought access from Pearl St; it appears to be a shared area and they don’t want to change current status with neighbors. If the location of the proposed garage were pulled up 16 feet, the house on Pearl St would have a clear shot to the backyard. The existing shed on the neighboring property would then be next to the new garage. Chair Shuff noted he does have concerns, commenting it would be one thing if the attached garage were placed in the current location. However, as proposed with only a 6-inch setback, the proposal would not be improving a non-ideal situation currently. There may also be more impact to the abutting house to the north due to the closeness of the buildings, wherein it could be that they have a structure within 7-8 feet of the east side of the house. Shuff also noted it was unclear what the status of the driveway access agreement is. In Old Town it is very common to have a detached garage, that is not a special condition. Because of these factors, Shuff doesn’t see rational or justification for hardship; not nominal or inconsequential, or equal to or better than. As a Commission, we must review the application under these three standards. If approval is to be granted, the Commission must come up with a rationale. Coffman noted the width of lot, the existing trees, and walking access to the lot, are all conditions that were not put in place by the applicant. Could these elements be considered hardships that would affect options? Vice-Chair Lawton commented that this lot is unique based on history and shape. Access could be along the side and then through back. May be some decking and other elements that indicate use. Why not access through the side of the house and back of the yard. Lawton stated his agreement with the city practice of requiring new buildings to be built to code when demolished. McCoy offered agreement with the hardship issue. McCoy observed that the existing condition is that a garage is present. Can’t access from the alley because we can’t assume there is an access agreement. Moving the garage to the rear and access from Laporte is a hardship because the yard will be consumed by the garage. This is not an ideal situation; however, the existing conditions would be improved by a new structure. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 Commission member Vogel stated she is very challenged with this proposal and is struggling to accept that this is a true hardship issue or that what is proposed would truly be an improvement. Hayes offered the Commission counsel to not consider access from the south if no evidence of ability to access exists. McCoy commented that the applicant has applied for a variance to re-build the garage, it seems the best solution may be to move this garage into the alley. Could request be withdrawn or tabled to attain more information regarding alley access? Beals responded that the ability to table or postpone the item now lies with the Commission; we could table the item with a request for more information regarding alley access. Beals informed a withdrawal would start the application process all over again including new fee. San Filippo asked if the applicant’s representative could also ask for the item to be tabled on behalf of the applicant? Beals explained that the suggestion to table normally comes from the Commission and then is verified with the applicant. San Filippo asked how long the item could be carried once tabled. Beals answered that he would prefer a motion that has some direction specifically regarding time frame i.e., specific month, 6-month timeframe, etc. Shuff summarized three options: 1) take the proposal as presented without consideration of alley access; 2) withdraw the application in total; 3) table the item (pause) to allow time for investigation and/or modification. Input from applicant representative is requested. Sullivan responded the applicants do not want to withdraw the item; it appears that votes are not present to approve at present. Sullivan explained that the applicants bought the property in August; according to Sullivan, the City told the applicants that as long as the new garage fit the footprint of the existing structure, it would be ok. The west side of the existing structure has eaves that go over the property line. The proposed structure would not have eaves, only gutters. Shuff asked Sullivan if she was comfortable in determining the best option? Sullivan responded that she would only want a vote if it was for approval. Sullivan then stated she prefers to have the item tabled rather than potentially denied. Sullivan asked if the structure were moved to the back and trees removed, that would necessitate a 15-foot setback. Would they be able to install a driveway? Maybe access could come back off the alley. Perhaps there are solutions in which no variance request would be needed, only a building permit. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to TABLE ZBA230023 to be re-heard at any point in the next six months. Yeas: Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy Nays: Absent: Carron THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED Commission member John McCoy recused himself, stating that Sean Tomlinson, petitioner, is also working on one of McCoy’s projects**. Departed meeting at 9:33am. 3. APPEAL ZBA230024 Address: 115 N Shields St Owner: Hunter and Kate Swanson Petitioner: Sean Tomlinson, Designer Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4)(a) Land Use Review Commission Page 7 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 Project Description: This is a request for an addition to an existing home to have a side wall height of 21 feet 4 inches while abutting a property on the north side. This wall is setback a total of 7 feet 10 inches from the north side property line, which would allow the maximum wall height to be 16 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is on N Shields, and is a long rectangular lot stretching back to a vacated alley that is now a part of the subject property. The request is to build an addition to the primary house. In that addition, the wall along the north encroaches into the solar access of the adjacent property, and thus requires a variance. If there were not solar access, this wall is set back far enough from the property line that it would not need a variance. The addition is setback a bit from the required 5-foot setback. The first-floor wall has a cantilevered window that approaches but does not encroach the side setback. Beals showed elevations of the subject property and neighboring property, noting the previously approved solar encroachment present at 119 N Shields St. as well as the requested portion of the proposed addition that is within the solar access setback. It is smaller in nature compared to what was improved for the property to the north. Beals also presented north elevations of the proposed addition, comparing variance and non-variance design options. Shadow-casting drawings were presented, which depict shadow vectors for Winter Solstice, Summer Solstice, and Equinox. Equinox and Summer Solstice shadows will not affect neighboring property. Construction is currently underway, and a permit was pulled for this addition; mid-construction, the design is being altered thus a variance is now being requested. Beals noted that a letter was submitted from the neighbor at 119 N Shields in support of the project. A letter of opposition was received and subsequently rescinded, as the sender mistakenly thought he project abutted their west property line. Chair Shuff asked what time of the day is represented in the shadow-cast images? Beals responded that those images are based on the time of the Sun’s high point of the day. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Sean Tomlinson, 141 S College Ave, Ste 102, addressed the Commission and provided comments. Tomlinson confirmed that the project is underway, and the variance is sought for a modification to approved design. Tomlinson explained that access off of/on to Shields is challenging. 119 N Shields utilizes access from the south side of the property, and this represents an existing condition. The submitted site plan shows the distance between buildings and driveway location. The proposed modification to the design would mirror what happens on the south side of the property, which would allow for more usable space within a bathroom. Modified design includes a shed dormer on both north and south sides of the proposed new construction. Solar impact would be most pronounced in the Winter when light levels are at their lowest angle. Tomlinson provided video animations that describe the path and change of shadows throughout the day on Solstice/Equinox dates. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if the reason for modifying the original design is to produce increased head room? Tomlinson responded that kicked off the change, and it also made more architectural sense when considering neighborhood aesthetic. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 APPROVED Minutes – November 9, 2023 Public Comment: Audience member Cally Stockton, 110 S Mountain Ave, borders to the south. Own the vacated alley; current owners are communicative. In favor the design and symmetry. Not impacted by solar encroachment. Julie Mote, 119 N Shields, stated that she is perfectly ok with the proposal. It affects their home the most, and she has seen Tomlinson’s presentation beforehand and is comfortable with the proposal as presented. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated he has no problem with the application. Solar access is the sole issue and is a non-issue due to the presence of the driveway adjacent to 119 N Shields. Vice-Chair Lawton stated he supports the application. Justification could be based on rationale of nominal/inconsequential or equal to or better than. The shadow study is a neat piece of evidence! Commission member Vogel stated she is in favor and appreciates the support of neighbors. Commission member San Filippo stated that he agrees with all comments; there appears to be no impact on neighbors, and he too appreciates hearing the support of neighbors. Chair Shuff stated that he appreciated the applicant presentation and shadow studies too. The proposal would have minimal impact, seems to be a reasonable request, and is evidence process works. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to APPROVE ZBA230024 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the north abutting property’s potential roof solar is not affected; the north abutting neighbor has a driveway between the house and the potential addition. 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 Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy Nays: Absent: Carron THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:57am Meeting Minutes were approved at the December 14, 2023 LURC Regular Meeting. All members present voted to approve the Minutes, with the exception of Member Carron, who abstained.