Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 08/08/2024 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro Staff Liaison: Justin Moore (Acting) 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 8, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Commission members McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron and San Filippo were present; members Coffman and Vogel were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by member Carron, to approve the July 11, 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 ZBA240018 Address: 2145/2155 Midpoint Dr Owner: GYPRO Properties LLC Petitioner: Bobby Inabinet, Contractor, AMAROK, LLC Zoning District: E Code Section: 4.3.5(C) Project Description: There are two variance requests associated with this application: 1. Request to install a 10-foot-tall security fence along existing perimeter fencing at a commercial business. The maximum allowable height for fences is no more than 4 feet between the front building line and the front property line, and no more than 6 feet on rear and side portions of the property. MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 2. Request for installed wire security fencing to be electrified. Electrically charged fencing is not permitted in any zone district, except for the Urban Estate (UE), Rural Land (RUL), and Foothills Residential (RF) districts when utilized for the purpose of livestock and/or pasture management. Staff Presentation: Moore presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located across three separate parcels, generally located south-east of the intersect of Prospect Rd and Timberline Rd. Beacon Building Products is located on the property currently. The property was platted in 1973 as one lot and subsequently subdivided in 2003 into three lots. The existing primary structure was built in 1978 on lot 3; the building is accessed from Midpoint Dr through lot 2. Lot 2 is addressed as 2145 Midpoint and is considered a vacant lot. Lot 3 is addressed as 2155 and contains the business, comprised of the building, parking lot, and storage lot the southeast. Tract A off of lot 3 is an extension off of the lot and is currently being used as a storage lot. Existing fencing on the property does cross through all three parcels. This property is included in the E (Employment) district and abuts the industrial zone. The property is also immediately adjacent to the Larimer County BOCC and Corrections complex. Additionally, there are two schools within a half mile, as well as a place of worship and several designated Natural Areas. The applicant is proposing the construction within existing fencing of a 10-foot-tall, electrified fence though all three parcels. Applicant materials detail two potential anchoring solutions; both would support a 10-foot total height. Pictures of the lot detail existing use for business operations, including outdoor storage of building materials and commercial vehicles. Chain link fencing and wood privacy fencing are currently being used on-site. Moore explained that one of the purposes of the fencing standards is to avoid the appearance of walling properties off from the larger community. Commission member San Filippo asked Moore to confirm the height of current chain link fence in the rear of tract A; San Filippo commented that it appears to be more than 6 feet in height. Moore believes the fence to be 6 feet; applicant can confirm. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Michael Paight (sp?), Director of Government Relations, AMAROK Perimeter Security, Columbia, South Carolina, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Paight stated he was contacted by Beacon Building Materials to provide a security system solution after Beacon had been broken into several times. AMAROK’s primary business model is securing large outdoor spaces with their primary security system, the “electric guard dog”, which is an electrified security fence. Paight explained that the system is powered entirely by a 12-volt battery (similar to auto battery), and the system is never connected to electrical infrastructure. Solar panels provide power to the battery. A capacitor then amplifies the power to 7,000-9,000 volts in 1.9 seconds. Once charged, the system must release the energy mechanically down the interior line. It takes 3/10,000 of a second to perform a perimeter check. The system is connected to an alarm panel; if the panel detects 5 consecutive interruptions and is triggered, the alarm goes off on property as well as off-site dispatch. Thus, the system can provide a “verified alarm” status to local law enforcement. Industry standard for this type of fencing security system is 10-feet; this is adequate for crime deterrence. These systems are always constructed behind the primary barrier wall; separated by 4-8 inches. This system is the second line of defense and is separate from the primary fence/barrier. Electrified fences are already in place in agricultural settings here in Fort Collins and are generally much more powerful than the system being proposed today for business use. This system is restricted to 5 joules of energy due to its use in an urban environment. Commission member San Filippo asked for evidence that supported their claims of theft of materials and/or vehicular damage. Paight stated he does not have any direct evidence but could provide if necessary. San Filippo stated he thought that evidence to be critical. San Filippo asked if there are any insurance claims that can be provided as proof of theft occurring on the property? Paight stated that most folks won’t take out a claim if under the damage is substantially past their deductible. Paight stated that he did not think that was a critical piece of evidence. If the property owners feel that they Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 are at risk, then why not secure the property? San Filippo stated that he was attempting to get to the bottom of the claims put forth in the applicant materials. San Filippo stated he is a big believer in evidence, and asked if there was anyone present from Beacon present at the hearing who had the authority to speak to the Commission. Jayden O, Assistant Branch Manager of Beacon, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Jayden O stated that this effort was coming to them from corporate, and that company wide Beacon has experienced thefts and is attempting to secure all locations. Jayden O did not have direct evidence of theft or vandalism occurring at the Fort Collins location but stated that theft occurs at many different branches and the company is trying to cover its bases at a corporate level; this location is part of that strategy. San Filippo asked why the applicant considers it ok to not provide any evidence supporting their claims of theft? This is heavy material and not very easy to take. The average person is not going to be able to pull up and take materials out of the lot. Jayden O agreed to a point, noting that some of the smaller, high-value materials be easier to take. San Filippo stated that he had recently performed an inspection of the property at dark and observed that most of Lot 2 was not illuminated. How will vehicles be secured on that lot? Jayden O stated that the vehicles are regularly locked and secured when parked. San Filippo questioned Jayden O regarding claims of theft of catalytic converter. Jayden O stated that the local Beacon located hasn’t experience catalytic converter theft within the last 9 months. San Filippo noted that the south side of the building has by his count four wall-mounted lights., roughly 16-20 feet high. Last night, only one was illuminated. Would that not be an effective security measure for the property? Jayden O conceded that was a good maintenance issue and would be addressed. San Filippo continued to note that along the west access drive, pole-mounted lights were also not illuminated. San Filippo again questioned why these means of security are not being utilized. San Filippo asked if any other alternatives for securing the property have been pursued? Jayden O again emphasized that this effort is above the local level and is coming from corporate leadership. Commission member McCoy asked about the need for a 10-foot fence height. Paight again noted that industry standard for this device is 10 feet. What is truly needed at minimum is 2-feet above the primary perimeter fence. Someone could potentially climb primary fence and then climb on top and jump over electrified perimeter. This system is only activated if someone is criminally trespassing on property. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if there has been any discussion with other businesses nearby? Paight stated that a handful of other businesses have contacted AMAROK, but nothing has moved forward so far. If the variance is denied, next steps might be an appeal to Council and/or amendments made to the Code. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff asked Moore to clarify that LUC does not allow for electrified fencing? Moore responded that three zone types (UE/RUL/RF) currently allow for electrified fencing, only for agricultural purposes. Maximum height allowed for fencing is 6 feet. Vice-Chair Lawton noted that one of his last jobs was with client in the area. They had similar concerns about theft and vandalism on their property. Lawton himself has observed the heightened crime in area. This solution was investigated but was rejected basically out of hand. AT that time, it was determined that energy was better-spent on increased on-site security, closer relationship with Sheriff’s office, and neighbor-neighbor communications. There could be other solutions that are more tenable before considering this. Commission member Carron noted that he previously worked with a self-storage business north of this site; those owners utilized a six-foot fence with pointed tops, and it has been apparently working. This Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 variance request and application seems to be overkill for this property. Very much an urban environment. Carron had a question for Staff, noting that there appeared to be no approval of outdoor storage for Lot 2. Moore confirms that no development process or approval has been granted for outdoor storage on Lot 2. Lot 3 and Tract A have been approved for outdoor storage. Shuff stated his opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated the security issues stated as evidence within their application nor have they explored other options that would be compliant with current Code standards. Approving just one of the requests would be a challenge; approving both requests at this time is not supported. Appeals must be vetted against what is currently in the Code. San Filippo agreed with the sentiments of Shuff, noting that the information provided is not sufficient. Therefore, at this time he cannot support the application. Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to DENY in whole Appeal ZBA240018 regarding the requested variances to the fence height restrictions under Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C); and the prohibition on electrically charged fences under Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C)(3), finding the variances would be detrimental to the public good because electrified fencing in urban areas increases safety risks; and the variance as submitted would not comply with any of the four Land Use Code variance standards contained in Section 6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(4). Specifically, the denied variances would not result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exception or undue hardship because insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that is different from other outdoor storage facilities; and the denied variances are not nominal and inconsequential because increase of fence height surround a majority of the property is not in the context of the neighborhood, and there is no record of approval for the use of Lot 2 as an outdoor storage facility. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron, San Filippo Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 2. APPEAL ZBA240019 Address: 3041 S Taft Hill Rd Owner: Sarah McIntosh Trust Petitioner: Sarah McIntosh Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) Project Description: This is a request for approval to conduct the operations of a home occupation/business outside of the primary dwelling on the property. Per Land Use Code, Home Occupation use shall be conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit. Staff Presentation: Moore presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located off of S Taft Hill, between Drake and Horsetooth. The property was annexed in 2003 and is included in the U-E (Urban Estates) zone district. Prior to annexation it was included in the Taft Acres subdivision. The primary structure on the west side of the lot was constructed in 2009. Access from Taft Hill and Moffett Dr. The accessory building is currently located on the eastern side of the lot; it is not currently shown in aerial photographs included in materials. The petitioner today owns and operates a business (Journey Nosework) located on the property, and previously had been operating elsewhere in Larimer County since 2018. The applicant would like to Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 move the business to their residential lot and operate within an accessory building. The request is to utilize the accessory building for business operations, which include Canine training. Land Use Code states that home occupations be operated entirely out of the primary residence, while utilizing not more than 50% of the dwelling. The request today is to operate a home occupation (dog training activities) out of the accessory building. Moore explained that Staff is recommending approval with the condition that no new parking be constructed between the front of the building and public right of way. Staffe would also ask that parking be contained to existing areas and/or recommend improvement of surface areas on the property. Commission member San Filippo asked if it would be appropriate to add condition that no overnight boarding of animals occur on the property? Moore confirmed the condition as appropriate. Home Occupation hours of operation are contained in code, and the petitioner has indicated that animals will not be kept on the premises overnight. Commission member Carron noted that the U-E zone district specifically calls out animal boarding as an approved use; does that definition apply to overnight boarding or just day-use? Moore looks for more information on how animal boarding is defined within code. Vice-chair Lawton asked for clarification as to whether this is two parcels, or one of the parcels that was earlier subdivided? Moore confirms the subject property is just one of the two parcels. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Sara McIntosh, 3041 S Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. McIntosh provided a brief overview of scent work/nose work. McIntosh noted that she is trained by NAfCSW and has developed activities and protocol for home dogs to perform. When dogs are not working, they are not allowed to have dog-dog contact, are crated, and are closely supervised by handlers. During instructional times, McIntosh will only teach one dog at a time. Why do this? The sport of nosework is very good for dogs and supports their independence as well as a bond between dogs and owners. McIntosh doesn’t work with confident dogs; they only work with timid dogs that need support. McIntosh volunteers with three local shelters and provides nosework as enrichment. Also provides help to others’ foster dogs. Regarding the property, McIntosh described the accessory building as currently being used for RV storage as well as office space. Parking can be adjusted to accommodate conditions. Hours of operations are about 4-6 hours/day, 4-5 days/week. Dog boarding requires a special license, and no boarding will be performed on the property. Additionally, McIntosh stated that no vehicular access will be taken from Moffett, as access can be taken from S Taft Hill. McIntosh also stated that their neighbors are supportive of the activities of the business, and some have asked to have their dogs involved in the training. Commission member San Filippo asked what dogs are trained to search for? McIntosh responded they use essential oils (Birch, Anise, Clove) in small quantities as scent targets. Some then transition dogs to search for other materials/scents. San Filippo asked how this work different from typical Search & Rescue? McIntosh explained that Search & Rescue dogs work off-leash, are trained to track footsteps, and human scent. These elements are not trained by McIntosh. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: City Assistant Attorney Maddie Shehan provided the Commission with the definition of Animal Boarding as contained in the code. Shehan cited Land Use Code Section7.2.2: which defines animal boarding as “The operation of an establishment in which domesticated animals, other than household pets, are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained or sold; but this term shall not include the operation of a kennel.” Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 Commission member San Filippo stated he had no issues with the application. The accessory building use has been well thought out; applicant testimony supports the use of this property as appropriate for this sport/activity. San Filippo is in support of approving the request. Commission member Carron agrees with the comments offered by San Filippo. Carron added that he admires the passion of applicant. Carron also noted that when dogs are engaged, they aren’t barking so there is a minimal chance of them becoming a nuisance while on the property. Vice-Chair Lawton applauds the applicant for proactively engaging with neighbors and noted that as long as parking isn’t intrusive to the street side of the property there should be no problems. Lawton stated he is in support of approving the variance request. Chair Shuff stated his agreement with previous comments; Shuff noted the proposed use in not detrimental to neighbors and is appropriate to the property location and site within neighborhood. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS Appeal ZBA240019 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) to allow the operations of a home occupation to be conducted outside the confines of a dwelling unit, in order to operate the applicant’s business training canines and their handlers from an accessory building and surrounding outdoor space, as shown in the materials for this hearing. With the following conditions: no new parking areas are added between the accessory building and the public right of way. The Commission finds that the variance, in consideration of the condition, would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2 of the following facts: the property is 1.5 acres in size, which is triple the minimum size for a single-unit house in the Urban Estate Zone District; the Urban Estate Zone District allows for other similar uses such as animal boarding and farm animals; no overnight boarding of the animals is proposed; and there are handlers with each canine the entire time. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron, San Filippo Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 3. APPEAL ZBA240020 Address: 505 Gordon St Owner: Bryan Brenning & Anne McKay Petitioner: Jeff Hansen, Architect, Forge + Bow Dwellings Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: Land Use Review Commission Page 7 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable rear lot square footage for a proposed addition. The existing house is 1,592 square feet of floor area, of which 1,053 is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 1,419 square feet. The applicant is proposing an 808 square foot addition to the existing house, located entirely on the rear half of the lot. The proposed addition would therefore exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 442 square feet. Staff Presentation: Moore presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at the corner of Magnolia St and Gordon St, north of Mulberry and northeast of the intersection of Mulberry and Shields. The primary structure was built in 1926. This parcel is unique in size and shape, with eight lot lines, none of which are the same size. The supplied site plan describes the difference between compliant and proposed addition options. Elevations describing these options were also shown. Vice-Chair Lawton asked about construction activities seen in photos; Moore explained that the construction is occurring on the neighboring lot, though visible in photos of the subject property. Commission member San Filippo also made mention of the observed construction occurring on the adjacent property. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jeff Hansen, Forge + Bow, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hansen explained that his clients have owned the house for a while and need the house to grow with their expanding family. They are trying to build as much as possible to fit the size of family. Hansen stated that he possesses a good appreciation and understanding of the Land Use Code; he originally set out to design something that was fully compliant. During design phase, it became obvious that meeting Code would disrupt the street corner and it’s open view; the Gordon St elevation of the house would be changed if the addition is built to be compliant, as the street appearance would be significantly changed. Pushing the addition to the west does not disrupt the character of the block and surrounding neighborhood. Commission member Carron noted that the rear half line includes the strange lot configuration. What would it look like if it were a square? Seems to be an obvious hardship considering the strange lot configuration. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member San Filippo stated he has no problems with the application; one staff slide essentially shows where the 808 square-foot addition would be located. As proposed, the plan is well thought out. Commission member Carron offered agreement to the comments offered by San Filippo. Carron again cited the uniqueness of corner lot plus unique lot size that were considered within the proposed design. Character of the house and neighborhood have been considered and preserved with the proposed design. Additionally, the proposal will not disrupt existing mature tree canopy, which may have been damaged or reduced with a compliant addition. Chair Shuff noted that he is personally familiar with property and aware of the unique constraints of the property shape. In light of these considerations, Shuff feels the proposal is well considered give the unique hardship present on the lot. Shuff is in support of approving the request. Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA240020 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot to exceed the maximum of 1,419 square feet by an additional 442 square feet in order to construct the proposed addition to an existing house as shown in the materials for this hearing. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 APPROVED Minutes – August 8, 2024 The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and by reason of exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant, in consideration of the following facts: the property has 8 unique property lines; the existing primary building is mostly in the rear half of the lot; and the proposed design does not exceed the allowable floor area for the primary building. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron, San Filippo Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:41am. Meeting minutes were approved during the September 12, 2024 LURC Regular Meeting by all present.