Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 09/12/2024 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro Staff Liaison: Noa 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 SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by member Coffman, to approve the August 8, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA240021 Address: 914 W Oak St Owner/Petitioner: Zachary and Kathryn Hitchcock Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable rear lot square footage for a proposed garage. The existing house is 1,850 square feet of floor area, of which 567 square feet is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 700 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 336 square foot garage on the rear half of the lot, which would exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 203 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the middle of the block along W Oak St, west of S Washington Ave. Beals MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 pointed out via aerial photograph that the original house is in line with most of the other houses on the block. The existing addition sticks further into the rear lot and creates a sort of courtyard. The request today is not to exceed allowable square footage for an accessory building, but instead to increase allowable space on the rear half of the lot. The proposed garage would be located in the northeast corner of the lot and would meet the required setbacks. An existing shed would be removed prior to the construction of the proposed garage. The shed has not been confirmed as counting towards floor area or not; if the applicant chose to keep it and it is confirmed to be over-sized, an additional variance request would be needed. The proposed garage is designed to contain a car lift that allows for the stacking of two vehicles in the footprint of a single vehicle bay. Beals presented photographs of the property taken from street view, in which the rear addition is visible. Photos taken from the alley contain the existing shed and the described location of the proposed garage. Chair Shuff summarized to the Commission his understanding that under the new code, this request only necessitates a variance to rear-lot maximum square footage. Beals confirmed. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Zach Hitchcock, owner, 914 W Oak St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hitchcock stated that they are excited about the project after buying the house a few months ago. The seller indicated that a plan had already been drafted for a garage, and Hitchcock found out it would not be appropriately sized. With in-laws coming to move in and a baby on the way, this will help to alleviate congestion of on-street parking. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he sees no problem in granting the variance. A block south of this location has an example of similar garage addition that was constructed in the rear half of the lot. This is not out of line of the character of the neighborhood. Coffman supports the request. Vice-Chair Lawton lauded the plan as creative and a unique way to solve parking congestion along the street. Lawton supports the variance. Commission member San Filippo offered agreement with the previous comments and stated that he would support the variance as presented. Member Carron agrees, noting the design solution of stacking cars with a lift on a limited footprint. Chair Shuff concurs with previous comments, noting that he used to live across the street from this property. As presented, the garage would leave ample open space on-site with the courtyard. Shuff stated he would support the variance request as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240021 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 700 square feet by an additional 203 square feet in order to construct a garage in the OT-A Zone District as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 2.1.6 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 in consideration of the following facts: The property still includes back-yard space; the proposed garage is considered one story; and the proposed garage is sized for one car in width. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 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. 2. APPEAL ZBA240023 Address: 509 Remington St Owner: Kevin and Dawn Buffington Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-C Code Section: 3.1.8, 2.1.6 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. To exceed the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building (existing barn and proposed attached garage) by 398 square feet. The proposed accessory building will be 998 square feet, and the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building in the OT Zone Districts is 600 square feet. 2. To encroach the 8-foot minimum garage door setback from an alley by 3 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the garage door 5 feet from the alley. Staff Presentation: *Prior to the staff report, Beals reported that the third variance request that was originally noticed for this project was deemed to be not needed. The application will continue with the two variance requests noted in the Project Description* Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the existing barn building in question is split along an original shared property line; in time, the current owner of the subject property purchased both lots and have been able to adjust the property line. Now, they would like to move the historic barn structure entirely to 509 Remington. This structure and proposal have been reviewed by Historic Preservation and have been given the ok. The proposal is to move the existing historic barn structure to the north and east. The barn encroaches into the public alley by a few feet and will be moved entirely onto the private property. Due to the barn being within the floodplain, it will also need to be raised up as well in order for people to use and be inside the accessory structure. Beals presented a boundary line adjustment, which has been completed to allow for Parcel 1 to fully contain the barn footprint as it currently sits. This did not create a new non-conformity. A new foundation will be poured for the new addition to the garage. The orientation of the barn will be maintained in order to preserve the historic context of the structure. The variance request also exceeds the maximum allowable square footage with the addition to the garage. Code requires separation of accessory and primary buildings by 10-feet; this would be hard to achieve given the size of the lot. Therefore, the barn/garage and proposed addition will be joined as one structure, which is bigger than the allowable square footage for a single accessory building. The existing structure does have a previous shed addition, that was not part of the original historic barn. This would be removed and replaced with the proposed garage addition. Chair Shuff asked to confirm his understanding of the variance request. Regarding setback requirements, was there a justification for why that could not comply with the 8-foot distance? Perhaps the applicant can provide explanation. Beals noted that preserving the historic spatial context was important. Because the garage door is present, it typically requires an 8-foot setback, but the 5-foot placement reduces encroachment into the back yard. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Interiors, 419 Canyon Ave #200, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Meyer noted that his was a very special project with many layers of and many people involved. Meyer explained that the owners approached VFLA years ago with an idea of improving conditions on the lot and of the barn, which was becoming more and more dilapidated over the years. Initially, the property owner explored turning the building into a carriage house and garage. Pursuing that first step, conceptual review process brought up concerns about the feasibility of the project as it would trigger a change of use. Instead, a decision was made to turn the structure into an outdoor/backyard entertainment space, in addition to creating a garage. The property is a historic landmark, and the barn is a contributing factor. The applicants have reached out to Historic Preservation, and due diligence has been performed to preserve that status. Floodplain status also means the floor needs to be raised to 12 inches above flood plain, meaning an overall increase of about 6 inches from current. After revising plans and realizing the barn needed to be lifted, a structural engineer was engaged, and the lifting of the structure was deemed feasible. Building cannot be listed and moved and still leave space for the garage. The current proposal is a compilation of compromise, with many moving parts. The biggest area of improvement is that the barn is overlapping west property line by 6 inches; that will be alleviated by moving the garage 5-feet from the property line. Moving the barn to the north is already consuming some of the existing yard area. At present, the project has been through conceptual review, boundary line adjustment, floodplain review, structural engineering, and historic review. This is last piece. Commission member San Filippo asked about the impact on large evergreen tree on the lot. The barn will be moved farther away from that tree. Arborists were consulted to determine if it would be better to leave the barn where it is or leave close to tree. Arborists determined it was a wash either way. San Philipo asked if trimming would need to occur to allow for the increased height? Tree would be minimally trimmed. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Meyer how much of original structure would be maintained? Are existing materials being used? Meyer explained that the bottom 12 inches of frame walls would be cut off and removed due to wood rot. The entire barn will be refinished inside and out, which is allowed by historic preservation. Original design intent and architectural style of the barn will be maintained. Lawton asked if the intent is to gain vehicular access to the garage from the alley? Meyer responded that alley access will be utilized for garage. That section of alley is deemed to be renovated next spring; that timeline creates a sense of increased urgency to complete portions of the project prior to planned alley improvements. Public Comment: Audience member Sylvia Mucklow, owner, 516 S College Ave, noted a number of concerns. -The adjacent alley is used for commercial deliveries and will have increased public use. -Seems barn is being turned into a “venue” and may increase foot traffic. -Height is a concern, as is the space from the alley. -When the garage is opened up for access from the alley, traffic will be blocked. -Barn may have historic status, but could also encroach more into yard space. -Big City Burrito takes frequent delivery from the alley, directly across from barn location. -Will sight lines be impacted coming off of Mulberry as one enters the alley? -Concerns over increased unauthorized entry into her parking lot. Chair Shuff clarified that there is not a proposed door from the barn leading directly to the alley. Shuff acknowledged the alley is busy, in part due to Big City Burrito and other businesses. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 Commission member Coffman noted that this lot does not allow for commercial use, thus the building cannot be used as a public venue or small-scale reception center per code. However, it is being used to be occupied by people. Commission member Carron believes visibly concerns will be alleviated by moving the barn further away from the alley. By maintaining the existing driveway, vision out to the alley will be maintained. Coffman noted that he understands that the 8-foot garage setback allows for vehicular parking in front of garage. Beals confirms, noting that it allows for safe backing out of a garage as well. Shuff notes that 5 feet is pretty small area to make a turn into a garage; may need to approach from far side of the alley and perform multi-point turn. Coffman, referring to first variance, this this a benefit to the City and alleviates many long-term non- conforming issues. Continuous building is ok, the five-foot distance maintains face of existing barn. Lawton asked Beals for any more information about the alley improvements. Beals stated that he cannot speak for the Engineering Dept, but most of the time alley improvements consist of new asphalt and ensuring that grade directs stormwater off the surface appropriately. Garage will be kept at the grade of the alley, rather than building a ramp up to the raised grade of the barn. San Filippo noted the alley is signed as “No Parking” on either side. Would that change with the 5-foot space proposed? Beals clarified that the space created may be used for approaching cars to pass but is not intended for parking. San Filippo asked if the boundary line adjustment meant that if sold, the barn would be entirely on 509 Remington? Beals noted the boundary line adjustment would recognize the new boundary of adjustment. Sylvia M noted she met with City officials regarding alley improvements. The alley will be brick paved similar to others, with hanging flower baskets and trash receptacles. Utility wires will also be buried. Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff commented that he is struggling a bit with the request. He has no issues with the size of the structure; however, he does have some questions about the balance of setting the garage back and maintaining the historic placement. From an architectural perspective, Shuff can understand the argument to push the structure back. If not for historic considerations, he would not support the 5-foot setback and would ask for the required 8-foot setback. This alley is tight and busy, and a 5-foot setback from garage would be difficult and could lead to traffic backups and increased risk of vehicular accidents. Member Carron noted that Shuff’s comments make sense. Ideally, a new structure would comply with current standards and codes. Carron stated that he was starting to lean towards an 8-foot setback to ensure safety and conformity with code. This would also help to separate new and historic pieces of architecture. Member Vogel referenced the email received in support of the proposal, in which the owner stated they had also constructed a garage and were required to maintain an 8-foot setback. Vogel felt this email offered support for approval of the request. Member McCoy stated he has no problem with the proposed 5-foot setback, which may keep cars from parallel parking on the lot. Saving the barn is admirable. If the 8-foot space is maintained, McCoy feels there is a good chance that vehicles will use it for unauthorized parking from time to time. Vogel frequents this alley, and currently this building does stick out. With the combination of utility poles, navigating this alley can be a challenge. Vogel stated she has no problem with the proposed 5- foot setback, and feels that it will improve overall conditions. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that he likes the continuity of the face of the barn and garage both at the 5-foot setback. Alley improvements will get rid of many of the elements that make current navigation difficult and/or less safe. The project does present a combination of plusses and minuses, Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 but overall improvement created with the proposal. Lawton stated he is in favor of approving the request. Member San Filippo stated his support of the application as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240023 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.1.8 to allow the allowable floor area for an accessory building to exceed the maximum of 600 square feet by an additional 298 square feet; and the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow an encroachment of 3 feet into the minimum garage door setback requirement of 8 feet, in order to relocate a historic barn and construct an attached garage in the OT-C Zone District, as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 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 in consideration of the fact that the reduced setback lessens impacts to the barn’s historic character. Furthermore, due to extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, the strict application of Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 would result in undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant in consideration of the following facts: the historic barn limits the placement of new accessory structures; and the relocation of the barn and raising of the elevation are required. 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. • OTHER BUSINESS -There was one attempt at decision appeal last month (regarding ZBA240016), but the application was not sufficient as submitted and did not move forward. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 am Meeting Minutes were approved unanimously during the October 10, 2024 meeting.