Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 06/13/2024 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro 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 JUNE 13, 2024 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 San Filippo made a motion, seconded by member Carron, to approve the May 9, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA240010 Address: 300 E Lincoln Ave Owner/Petitioner: Haley Devon Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1) Project Description: This is a request to operate a home occupation from an accessory building rather than a dwelling. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at the corner of Third St and E Lincoln Avenue. On the property, there is a primary residence plus an accessory building. The request is to operate a home occupation out of the detached accessory structure. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 Per Code, home occupations must operate out of a primary residence and are not permitted to operate out of an accessory building if it is detached. Beals presented site plan and aerial photos of the lot, noting the presence of two vehicle access points, one from Third Street and one from E Lincoln. Both access areas are improved with road brace/gravel (verified not to be dirt). The request would take the existing accessory building and install a reception area in addition to two salon rooms at the rear of the building; the front of the structure would be maintained as a garage space. The driveway and parking area are adequate for at least two vehicles. Additionally, Beals noted that home occupations cannot take more than 50% of floor area within a primary building and can only employ one outside employee who does not live on the property. The applicant is compliant with these requirements and is only requesting a variance to operate the home occupation out of the detached accessory building rather than the primary residence. Commission member McCoy asked if the variance were to be approved, does that approval stay with the deed? Beals responded that the variance approval does stay with the property and is not occupation specific. Chair Shuff asked Beals what the application indicated as the stated what rationale. Beals confirmed the variance as being sought on the justification of equal to or better than or nominal and inconsequential. No change in size of building is planned, and all other requirements are complying. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Haley Devon, 300 E Lincoln, Fort Collins, CO, was present and declined to offer additional comment. Vice-Chair Lawton asked applicant Devon Haley if the business would have a separate address. Lawton noted that parking access for the business is taken from Third Street, but the business is addressed to 300 E Lincoln. Lawton wanted to ensure customers could effectively navigate to the parking lot. Member San Filippo additionally asked the application if they currently have a website, to which Devon responded in the affirmative. Devon stated that her salon is not a huge business, and she could easily display a small sign and update website info with revised parking information. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member San Filippo stated he has no problem with the variance request, noting that signage and website updates should be adequate for wayfinding, and available space for parking is adequate. Commission member McCoy agreed with the comments offered by San Filippo. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that the plans appear to be a good use of space, and he agrees with the points put forth by San Filippo et al. Chair Shuff reiterated that the issue of home occupation being run out of an accessory building vs primary building is the only trigger for variance request. Equal to or better than or nominal and inconsequential could both be use as justification Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240010 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.3(1) to allow a home occupation to be operated from an accessory building, a detached garage, rather than a dwelling in the RL Zone District as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from section 3.8.3(1) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 contained in Sections 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the floor area of the home occupation does not exceed the allowable floor area it would have if it were in the primary building; there is vehicle access from both streets; and there is room for three or more off- street parking spaces on the property. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: San Filippo, McCoy, Shuff, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA240013 Address: 210 Clover Ln Owner: Dane Barclay & Erick Erickson Petitioner: Mike Bockelman, Contractor Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: There are two requests for this variance: 1. Request for an accessory building to encroach 2 feet into a required 5-foot side setback. 2. Request for a front porch feature to encroach 1 foot into a required 15-foot front setback. Staff Presentation: Note that this request has been reviewed under a previous application, it is being revisited due to permit expiration. The variance request was granted previously. Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Clover Ln near Laporte Ave. The request is to rebuild a garage on the site, replacing an existing garage that would be demolished. The existing garage is right on the property line and may hang over with the eaves. The proposed front of the new building would also encroach one additional foot compared to the existing building today. There is an overhanging element of the porch shown in plans, but because that element does not touch the ground, element does not require a variance. The variance is for a wall portion that extends from the existing house today. The proposed garage is not attached to the primary structure and would be brought 2 feet from the property line. If the proposed building site were to be moved further north, the garage door would be rendered inaccessible to a vehicle due to restricted building width. The proposed garage is one-story and includes gutters to move water away from the neighboring property The property is currently under construction, but the existing garage has not been demolished nor has construction begun on the proposed new garage structure. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if this proposal is exactly what was proposed before? Beals clarified that what was proposed earlier was a rebuild on property line, but an approved plan included a 2-foot setback. This current proposal reflects what was previously approved, the 2-foot setback distance. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Mike Bockelman,1669 E CR 70, Wellington, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Bockelman noted that they are only asking for the garage structure at this point. The 1-foot Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 front bump-out was achieved through a siding application, so that portion of the variance is no longer needed. Bockelman explained that the awning feature on the front porch is anchored back to the primary structure on the front, so there is no permanent structure within the setback. Thus, the front of the home now meets code, and the request today is only made regarding the proposed garage. Bockelman stated that the original variance work didn’t get completed due to extended design and engineering phases; Bockelman acknowledged that he didn’t realize that there is a six-month expiration on approved variances. Commission member San Filippo asked Bockelman to confirm that he was requesting removal of request 2 regarding front porch encroachment. Bockelman answered in the affirmative – the second portion of the variance is being withdrawn. San Filippo asked if the garage could accommodate two cars stacked on to the other? Bockelman explained that it is more likely that the garage will be used to hold one car and a few motorcycles. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff commented that the application seems pretty straight forward, and similar to what was approved previously. Vice-Chair Lawton asked to clarify that a motion to approve would need to strike part of the request no longer needed? Chair Shuff confirmed that the motion to approve need only contain the first portion of the request. Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA240013 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.7(E)(4) to allow an encroachment of 2 feet into the minimum side setback of 5 feet in order to demolish and rebuild a garage in the NCL Zone District, as shown in the hearing materials, with the condition that request part 2 regarding front porch 1-foot encroachment be removed from the variance request, at the request of the applicant. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from section 4.7(E)(4) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Sections 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the 2-foot side setback encroachment will continue to allow the garage to be functional; and the garage is currently encroaching into the side setback. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: San Filippo, McCoy, Shuff, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA240014 Address: 216 W Horsetooth Rd Owner/Petitioner: Scott Butters Zoning District: C-G Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 Code Section: 3.5.3(E)(9) Project Description: This is a request to use exterior mounted L.E.D. lighting fixtures on site. Staff Presentation: (26:53) Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at the corner of McClelland Dr and W Horsetooth Rd. The request is to install LED band-style lights along edges of the building. Code does prohibit this type of light, to limit a building from becoming a sign and prevent lights from being used beyond safety uses. Site plans provided by the applicant describe the location of proposed light installation as along the front and portion of two sides (East/West) of the building. Additionally, Beals provided an aerial view of the subject property with distances marked to nearest dwelling units as well as businesses across the street, including Chipper’s Lanes bowling alley, AMC movie theater, and Loaf N’ Jug gas station. The distance between the subject property and the nearest dwelling unit is approximately 504 feet. Between the subject property and the residential area there exists train tracks, recreational trail, and ditch. Images of the building were provided by the applicant, where the lights have already been installed, including views of the building during the day and during the evening when the lights are on. The lights are installed in such a way that they are concealed in the detail of the building. The lights are similar to what is referred to as “holiday lighting” in the Code, which is allowed during certain seasonal times. This request asks that the lighting be used year-round. LED technology allows users to modify colors and tones, as well as to add movement and animated features. Beals also noted that the subject property has parking lot lighting installed, as well as under-canopy lighting installed at the business entrance. In reviewing the application, staff recommends approval but only with the conditions that the lights be reduced to 50% of their maximum brightness, be turned off after 10pm, and not be allowed to employ movement or animation features. Commission member San Filippo asked what time of year the picture was taken in which the Red/White/Blue LED lights are shown? Beals explained that the pictures were provided by the applicant, and they may be able to clarify. That photo was submitted as an example of the functionality of the lights. Vice-Chair Lawton reiterated the intent of Code to not allow a building to be used as a sign. The applicant notes in their application materials that the lights would be installed primarily for security issues. Beals confirmed this as accurate. Chair Shuff asked Beals if any other similar buildings in town have made a similar request or currently use these type of LED lights? Beals responded yes, specifically the building we are in (City Hall). The City is currently working to ensure compliance. Beals noted that there are probably other buildings in the city have similar lighting, however Zoning Depts works on a complaint-based system, so just because another building may have this type of lighting does not mean they are in compliance. Commission member Carron asked Beals to confirm that the LED lights have already been installed on the building? Beals confirmed the LED lights are currently installed. Carron asked then is the request to use these lights regularly, not just during holidays? Beals confirmed; the request is to use the lights year-round. Carron understands this proposal to be a year-round lighting solution as described in application. Beals noted the typical holiday season lines up with the when lights are illuminated along the downtown N College Ave corridor. There are other holidays throughout the year, so it is reasonable to think that holiday lighting may be used in compliance outside of that timeframe as well. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 Shuff asked Beals if there are any seasonal requirements for holiday animation elements? Would a fixed scheme for lighting used outside of holiday times be ok if during holiday times they wanted to animate the lights? Beals recommends seeking a Director interpretation of Code on this gray area. Carron asked how this might fall into Dark Sky community concerns? Beals explained that “Dark Sky” is a term that is defined differently depending on the context. The intent of “Dark Sky” initiatives is to reduce light pollution for nocturnal animals. Down-directional lights are generally employed. The proposed lights are at a lower height than existing parking lot lights and thus not a concern in regard to “Dark Sky” light pollution. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Devin Rodarmel, 7061 Cattails Dr, Wellington, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Rodarmel is with the manufacturer/installer of the LED lighting used on the subject property. Rodarmel explained they are a Fort Collins-based manufacturer and have been installing the product for the past 10 years (including City buildings). Rodarmel explained the LED lighting is a low-voltage system that can be plugged into existing outlets and doesn’t require hard-wiring. The lighting is Dark Sky compliant but not certified, as the light is directed horizontally; it is shielded from light facing up. The lights can be dimmed to any intensity, can be spaced out as needed, and can be fully customized as needed. Commission member San Filippo asked Rodarmel to confirm that he is authorized to speak on behalf of property owner Scott Butters, and authorized to agree to any conditions the Commission might impose? Rodarmel stated that he was authorized to speak on behalf of the applicant, and additionally the applicant Scott Butters is present and available for questions. San Filippo stated he would like to ask questions directly of the applicant. Vice-Chair Lawton ask Rodarmel a question regarding the LED product. In previous cases, has the primary use/application been for security? Rodarmel responded that with City buildings, LED lighting has been used more for celebration and recognition purposes. However, the LED systems can be configured depending on customers’ intended use(s). Lawton asked of the LED system was installed with the original purposes of providing security lighting, and is there a different use now? Devon responded that the LED system provides more light generally for the entrance and parking lot areas at this location, to deter unauthorized loitering at the business outside of the hours of operation. San Filippo asked Rodarmel if he had taken the pictures provided, and approximately when the pictures were taken. Rodarmel responded the pictures were taken by the applicant, Scott Butters, and that Butters would be able to provide more specific information. Applicant and property/business owner Scott Butters, 8380 Sand Dollar Dr, Windsor, CO, addressed the Commission and offered additional comments. Butters was accompanied by his wife, Susan. San Filippo again asked when the pictures were taken. Butters indicated that the pictures provided as part of the application materials were taken approximately 45 days ago. San Filippo asked if the lights are at their brightest as depicted in the in pictures? Butters answered in the affirmative, stating that in pictures the LED lights are shown at their brightest for demonstration purposes. San Filippo asked what other colors the LED lights are able to display. Butters explained the number of colors is almost infinite; Rodarmel stated the system can display 16 million different colors. San Filippo asked Butters if he anticipates seasonal changes in colors? Butters answered yes, with the approval of the variance request, they would like to be able to show spirit and community support. During holidays and events such as CSU/High School football gates, etc. Butters stated that so far, the increased light provided by the LED system has improved safety at the building, and people are no longer sleeping in porch area overnight. Overnight, the LEDs emit a soft white light. San Filippo noted that in the application narrative, the LED system is described as enhancing safety and security; San Filippo asked Butters to explain how they do so, considering there are numerous Land Use Review Commission Page 7 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 other lights around this building. Butters explained that the LED lights draw attention to the building and to the activity that may or may not be occurring on property. San Filippo stated he had recently performed a site visit in preparation for the hearing, and during the site visit San Filippo counted four wall-mounted lights, six canopy lights, and seven lights on the front of the building; additionally, along the west side of the building there are at least three downward lights, and an additional four wall-washing lights on the backside of the building. Don’t they provide enough safety and security for this property? Butters responded that the number of needles and amount of drug paraphernalia found around the building during construction raised concerns of safety. That has not been happening since the building was re-opened with current lighting. Butters further explained that the business opened in December, and all lighting was installed and operational since that time. Lights were installed and present in the previous location [N College Ave] for 12 years without issue. San Filippo asked Butters what the anticipated frequency of color change might be? Butters responded that they would like to change colors during Holiday times, football games, fall colors and similar times of spirit. Lights will not be animated if so instructed by the Commission. San Filippo asked how the lights are dimmed. Butters explained the LED system is fully programmable and customizable via app. San Filippo asked what time of day the lights would turn on? Butters explained the lights turn on at dusk. Currently, the system is timed to run from 8pm – 3am to provide security lighting. Chair Shuff reiterated and clarified the conditions recommended by staff and included in the staff report: lights dimmed to 50%, lights off at 10pm, and no dynamic displays. Staff nor Commission has no preference on specific light colors, patterns, etc. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member San Filippo stated that he understands why the applicant would want the lighting; however, San Fillipo is not convinced that LED lighting is an appropriate option for the stated purpose of safety and security. Based on observations made at about 9:15pm, when conditions were sufficiently dark, there appeared to be more than sufficient lighting without the LED lights. Therefore, San Filippo is not in support of this application. Vice Chair Lawton agrees with the opinion offered by San Filippo. Lawton noted that LED lighting appears to be more for awareness of the business and signage purposes. As an on-going, daily application, LED lighting seems to be more of an attractor than a safety measure. Lawton understands that the location of the business may draw more transient and nuisance behavior, but that seems to be addressed by the other forms of lighting present. As installed, the LED system is using the top roof line as part of the signage and not part of safety and security. Commission member McCoy noted this is a difficult decision, however he is ultimately in support of the variance. McCoy owns a similar building, dealing with a third instance of vandalism within the year. In this case, because of the lighting there is more attention brought to the property and may encourage problem behavior to move somewhere else. Commission member Carron commented that he is going back and forth on approval; this is an egregious example of what shouldn’t be allowed by current Code, but technology has gotten ahead of the Code. Conditional approval makes sense, as the LED lights can be easily manipulated and modified to meet the terms of the recommended conditions. As a general question, how does the Commission start to look at this type of lighting, that can be used for normative lighting uses at certain times, and holiday/celebratory uses at other times? Lawton noted that there has been lots of work over the years regarding signage to maintain the look and feel of our community. Some of this is to minimize street-level distractions. From a City standpoint, Land Use Review Commission Page 8 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 we need to look into what needs to be put into place to standardize this type of application. LED lighting is a popular option and can be installed quickly. Chair Shuff stated that this is a difficult application. This type of lighting is not well defined within the Land Use Code or Sign code; technology has or will surpass the Code. This application comes down to interpretations of lighting vs signage. Sense of security is hard to define, and in some cases the more lights the more secure a property becomes. Gable line lighting is more clearly building signage. The fact that staff are willing to make conditions and the applicant is willing to accept those conditions makes it easier to consider approval. The code needs to be investigated and updated to address these new types of light technologies. Carron cited an image of LED lights, agreeing that anything above the eave line is outside of the scope of safety and security applications. That leads to an examination of what the lights can do outside of Holiday Hours – this is where the definitions get blurred, because these lights can be used for holiday displays up until a prescribed/programmed time and can then be used as more traditional lighting. This is where the distinction of standard lights during building review and building process can be muddied. However, the gabled lighting is definitely signage as currently employed. San Filippo asked Beals if there were any staff recommendation as to when lights can turn back on? Beals responded that staff are assuming that the lights would come back on during a PM hour, when ambient conditions were dark again. Rodarmel asked if the lights are only approved for “holiday” use, what are the defined parameters of holidays according to the City that can be celebrated with lights? Beals answered that the first response is that the timeframe is usually based on the duration of downtown holiday lights installed by the City. That question needs to be explored further with Director interpretation. Shuff reiterated the need for interpretation, as almost any given day could potentially be a holiday, celebration, or community event of some sort. San Filippo asked if that interpretation might be coming soon, and wondered if it would require any amount of Code changes. Beals explained staff will be exploring interpretation of this Code with the Director as soon as possible. This could result in a Code update but cannot be sure of the timeframe. With a Director interpretation, any new interpretation would be included in Code during the next round of Code updates. It may take weeks or months to achieve a full update, though a Director interpretation would be made before that. That interpretation would then be applied as guidance moving forward. Shuff questioned what types of conditions might be placed on the decision made today. Could a future condition be applied? Carron wondered if the item needed to be tabled until a Director interpretation has been rendered? Shuff noted the lack of clarity in the application of current Sign Code with this type of lighting. Also don’t want to set a bad precedent. Beals explained that if the variance was approved, and an interpretation came out that allowed more use than what is currently allowed, the applicant could be in full compliance. If the interpretation came back that limit what was approved today, that wouldn’t apply to the applicant because a variance would have already been granted, and we wouldn’t retroactively impose the new conditions. San Filippo asked if the Commission could impose a “Conditional Condition”? Assistant Attorney Madelene Shehan indicated that she could research that question, and suggested the Commission take a brief recess to allow time for legal research. Chair Shuff gaveled the hearing into recess. **RECESS at 9:51am** Chair Shuff gaveled the hearing back from recess **RESUMED at 10:07am** Madelene Shehan came back to the hearing and stated that on the question of “Conditional Condition”, it would require more research than expected, and more guidance can be provided later. In terms of the current appeal, the Commission could consider approval of just security lighting uses; the Commission could then apply a condition that during holiday times, applicant must comply with rules stated in code. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 Shuff noted there are two components present: eave lighting is security; gray area is any lighting along gable and/or roof line. That is more decorative or sign-based lighting, and at that point sign code takes over. Zoning may help to determine approved applications as well; separate pieces/areas of lighting may be addressed separately based on applicable zoning/signage code requirements. Rodarmel confirmed that “zones” can be created within lighting system, so that gable lighting above eaves could be on a separate zone to be considered as the “holiday” portion. Beals reiterated that the current request is for “non-holiday” usage; during holiday times, the lighting would comply with the regular holiday-lighting regulations. Staff, via Director interpretation can provide further information on “holiday” definition. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA240014 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 3.5.3(E)(9) to allow exterior-mounted L.E.D. lighting fixtures to be used as safety and security lighting on site in the CG Zone District as shown in the hearing materials. With the following conditions: the lights are dimmed 50%; they are shut off after 10:00pm; the lights do not blink, flash, animate, or change color while on display; and approval with conditions only applies to LED lights on the eaves of the building; LED lights above the eaves will be regulated by Sign Code and Zoning Code as required. The Commission finds that the modification in consideration of the conditions would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from section 3.5.3 (E)(9) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Sections 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the lights are setback 500 feet from the residential property; the building across W Horsetooth Rd is 250 feet away; and the lights are similar to holiday displays. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Carron Nays: San Filippo, Lawton Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4. APPEAL ZBA240015 Address: 1124 W Magnolia St Owner: Stephen Douglas Petitioner: Mike Hutsell, Architect Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3), 4.7(E)(3) Project Description: There are two requests for this variance: Land Use Review Commission Page 10 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 1. Request to have 897 square feet of floor area on the rear half of the lot. Based on the lot size and zone district, the total square footage allowed on the rear half of the lot is 616 square feet. 2. Request to encroach 5 feet 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 on the corner of S Shields and W Magnolia, with frontage on Shields St. The front setback is along Magnolia, and street-side setback is along Shields. To Note, the adjacent property to the north faces Shields, so their side setback abuts the subject property’s rear setback. The request is to build an attached garage accessory structure in the rear of the lot. There is existing road base material that is used for parking currently at the location of the proposed garage. The existing back door of the primary residence would tie into the proposed garage via a connected mud room. The proposed structure is a one-story addition to the primary residence. Architectural style and scale would be modeled after the primary residence to maintain visual cohesion. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Mike Hutsell, 429 S Howes St (High Craft Builders), Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hutsell explained that the primary goal with the proposed project is to create an attached garage that will support the homeowners through retirement. Two justification criteria being put forth are hardship and nominal/inconsequential. This lot is one of the most-shallow lots in the district, which limits the ability to build in the rear half of the lot. Some recent street and curb work along the street frontage limits the ability to build in the front half of the lot. There is an existing curb cut on Shields at the location of a previous garage that was torn down some time ago. Rear setback encroachment would be inconspicuous within this district, as many homes in the district encroach into their setbacks, particularly those on corner lots. The immediate neighbor has been provided with plan drawings and is in support of the process. Commission member San Filippo noted that the provided application narrative alludes to a garage that was torn down. How large was this garage? Hutsell stated he is unsure of actual measurements, but it was similar in size to what is being proposed – it is believed to have been a two-car garage of similar size. Property owner Stephen Douglas stated the garage was removed before their ownership; estimates of size are based on old Google map views. Public Comment: Allison Williams, 1120 W Magnolia St, addressed the commission and offered comment. Williams stated that the proposed project will mitigate noise from Shields. The former owner removed the previous dilapidated garage. Williams noted that the creation of a new garage structure would help to reduce street-level parking congestion in the neighborhood. Beals read an email received in opposition to the appeal. The letter is included in Supplemental Documents Log. Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff stated his opinion that this was a reasonable request, and appreciates the well-designed garage Land Use Review Commission Page 11 APPROVED Minutes – June 13, 2024 Commission member Carron offered agreement with the statements of Shuff. Carron noted the garage is well-sited on the lot; it appears to be smaller than what was there previously, representing an improvement over previous condition. Vice-Chair Lawton understands the desire of applicant for a garage, given weather and street parking conditions. Given encumbrances present on the lot, this is a good proposal. Commission member San Filippo noted he is sensitive to the “curse of the corner lot”. The presence of the nearby traffic-controlled intersection allows for safe entry/exit of the garage. Commission Member McCoy agrees with all comments offered by Commission members and is in support of the request. Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to APPROVE ZBA240015 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 4.7(D)(3) to allow the allowable floor are on the rea half of the lot to exceed the maximum of 616 square feet by an additional 281 square feet; and the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.7(E)(3) to allow an encroachment of 5 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet, in order to construct an attached garage in the NCL Zone District, as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from section 4.7 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Sections 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the design of the addition is similar to the existing house; the increase in floor area does not exceed the maximum floor area for the lot; the encroachment into the rear setback is 5 feet greater than the abutting neighbors’ required side setback; and the lot is 1,069 square feet below the minimum required lot size in the NCL zone district. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: San Filippo, McCoy, Shuff, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS -Beals noted that June is the last month during which the Commission will hear items out of the 1997 Land Use Code. Next month (July 2024) the Commission will begin hearing variances from the new 2024 Land Use Code. Please note that Code section numbering will be changing. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:42am Meeting minutes were approved during the July 11, 2024 LURC Regular Meeting by all present.