Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 10/10/2024 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 OCTOBER 10, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Vogel and San Filippo. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Commission member Coffman, to approve the September 12, 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 ZBA240024 Address: 1321 Robertson St Owner/Petitioner: Rick Dailey Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 2.1.4 Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 160 square foot accessory building to encroach 2 feet into the required side setback and 12 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum side and rear setbacks for this property in the R-L zone are 5 feet and 15 feet, respectively. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located mid-block on Robertson, north of Lake St and east of Pitkin St. The request is to place a shed at the rear of the property, 3 feet from both the side and rear property lines. MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – October 10, 2024 There is a property easement of 6 feet at the rear of the property. The applicant is reporting that there are currently no utilities present in the easement. Beals presented a site plan and aerial view of the property, noting the site of the proposed shed. Elevations describe the shed as being large enough to necessitate a building permit. A sliding glass door on the front of the shed would be facing the home. Plans call for landscaping and yard elements that are yet to be installed. The pergola/fence item shown on the renderings may also need a variance and/or permit but is not included in the purview of today’s meeting. Beals presented photographs of the property taken from the street and alley, noting that the applicants have started to pour a concrete pad intended for the proposed shed, but have paused in order to request a variance. A shed in neighbors’ yard that is visible in submitted photographs appears to be unpermitted and will be investigated/inspected. Chair Shuff confirms the request as being based on setback variance. Beals noted this group cannot grant a vacation of easements. So, until that easement is vacated, one option available is that this Commission could grant a conditional approval. Vice-Chair Lawton asked about the neighbors’ shed and easement – Beals responded that it appears that the height alone would require a permit and may require the vacation of the easement. Lawton asked if this would set precedent for neighborhood? Beals responded that variances are granted on an individual basis for each separate property. Shuff confirms staff recommendation to maintain 5-foot side setback and grant a 9-foot encroachment into the rear setback in order to maintain 6-foot easement. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Rick Dailey, owner, 914 W Oak St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Dailey noted that he purchased the home three years ago and have been developing a landscaping plan. Dailey stated that he thought his plans complied until recently. Dailey noted that he is working with TuffShed as his shed vendor. The proposed shed would be built on steel joists, and thus could potentially be moved off of pad for easement access. Daily provided an aerial overview of the neighborhood to provide context. He stated that he learned after the concrete pad was poured that different requirements are in place, and he had originally misinterpreted the requirements. Daily also stated that he was unaware that this application and materials submitted might get some increased attention on neighbors’ sheds. Public Comment: -NONE- -Shuff acknowledged a Letter of Support was received via email. Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron agrees with staff recommendation for a 9-foot rear encroachment to maintain the 6-foot utility easement. Carron noted his thoughts are more conflicted regarding the side setback. Chair Shuff asked Beals how much over maximum area is the proposed shed? If it were smaller, it could theoretically be placed anywhere. Beals explained that the maximum height and floor area, without a building permit, is 8 feet and 120 square feet respectively. Carron notes that County requirements allow for a larger un-permitted shed. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – October 10, 2024 Commission member Coffman wondered if it is best to punt this item back to City to allow the shed in the easement or not. If the encroachment of the easement is not an issue, then Coffman doesn’t see a problem with the 3-foot setback. Coffman stated that he would be in favor of conditional approval of the rear encroachment. Shuff noted that some work has been done with the construction of a concrete slab. Shuff is not sure if encroachment or vacation of the easement would be granted. Pulling a building permit may trigger increased structural fire ratings required for the shed. However, there is an expectation of a 15-foot setback per code. Coffman notes that the aerial view shows many sheds near or at the rear property line. Vice-Chair Lawton suggested that if there were a problem with the easement, some sheds appear to be more movable than others. In this instance the pad has already been poured and would need to be removed for easement access. Easement considerations could impact this decision and others. Lawton stated that he would feel more comfortable if this shed is completely off of the easement. Lawton asked Beals if there is a safety issue with the proximity of the neighboring shed? Beals responded yes, with the unpermitted buildings, there is a concern that fire rating has not been met and could increase the possibility of fire jumping from structure to structure. Beals confirmed that a building permit request has been submitted for this proposed shed. Commission member McCoy stated that he is ok with the request. McCoy questioned what might happen in the scenario that this Commission grants approval, and the City denies encroachment easement? Beals explained that if the 3-foot setback is approved and easement is not vacated, then the city would honor building up to the line of the easement. Shuff notes he is a bit split. On one hand, if the easement hasn’t been used the chances are it will not be used. The issue then goes to the concept of whether a rear setback should be maintained. Lawton noted that he is also considering what the hardship is to adjust the additional 3 feet? As it is now, this could create a precedent of impeding easement access. Commission member Carron agreed with Lawton, noting there is a lot of space on this lot that would allow for a minimum of 5 feet of space on either side. Coffman noted that most sheds in the area appear to be smaller than the 120 square foot/8-foot height. Because it falls on the easement, it is hard to align potential approval with ant of the three standard justifications. Coffman stated that he was leaning towards partial approval as detailed in the staff recommendations. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE IN PART ZBA240024 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 to allow an encroachment of 9 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet, in order to construct the proposed accessory building in the R-L 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 2.1.4 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 proposed structure is 160 square feet; and the rear setback aligns with the 6-foot utility easement; and 6 feet provides a minimum safe distance from the rear-property line. 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. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – October 10, 2024 2. APPEAL ZBA240025 Address: 924 W Magnolia Owner/Petitioner: Eleanor Pearson Living Trust / Eleanor Pearson Trustee Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 160 square foot carport to encroach 4 feet into the required side (street) setback. The minimum side (street) setback for this property in the OT-A zone is 9 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the corner of W Magnolia and Gordon St. The request is to construct a carport; to note, the setback requirement changed during the recent Land Use Code update from a 15-foot to a 9-foot setback requirement. Applicant has a stated desire to create a carport in order to provide covered parking, as the existing single-car garage is proving to be too small for modern vehicles. To note, there is no public sidewalk on this side of the street, and there is a 6-foot fence that that runs along the street side of the property. The proposed carport would be behind the plane of the fence. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Eleanor Pearson, owner, 924 W Magnolia St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Pearson noted she is a single, senior person living alone. Her garage is too small for modern cars, and the proposed carport would provide coverage to the space the is currently parking in front of the garage. The four-foot setback would allow for construction of a carport big enough to cover her car and provide increased safety and improved conditions for storage and vehicle access. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he sees no problem with the application. Coffman also noted that there is no public right of way or sidewalk along the property, and the proposed carport would be set behind a fence. Commission member Carron agrees, noting the safety issues that will be mitigated by the addition of a carport and cover. Carron believes this application meets the justification criteria of being nominal and inconsequential. Vice-Chair Lawton agrees with previous statements offered by Commission members. Lawton also expressed an opinion that expansion of the existing garage is not feasible, so this is a good solution. Chair Shuff agrees and is in support of the request, also noting that this meets the justification criteria as nominal and inconsequential. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Coffman 2.1.6, to APPROVE ZBA240025 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow an encroachment of 4 feet into the minimum side setback requirement of 9 feet, in order to allow for a proposed carport 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 setback from the curb to the carport is 14 feet; Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – October 10, 2024 the carport is open on all three sides; and there is an existing 6-foot-tall fence located 8 feet from the curb. 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. 3. APPEAL ZBA240026 Address: 6524 Lynn Dr Owner/Petitioner: Ruth Saaristo-Barber Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), 4.3.1(E)(1)(f) Project Description: There are three requests associated with this application for variance: 1. A request for approval to conduct the operations of a home occupation/business outside of the primary dwelling on the property. 2. A request to allow for more than 1 additional employee/co-worker on the premises (as needed). 3. A request to allow for exterior/outdoor storage on the premises of materials and equipment used for the home occupation. Per Land Use Code, Home Occupation use shall be conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit with not more than one (1) additional employee or co-worker, and there shall be no exterior storage on the premises of material or equipment used as part of the home occupation. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located within Lynn Acres subdivision, on the corner of Lynn Dr and Vivian St. Vivian St is unimproved while Lynn Dr is asphalted. The applicants are requesting operation of a landscaping company from the property. The operation appears to take up the back half of the property, wherein trucks and equipment are being stored and parked. There is a house located on the other half of the lot. Beals noted that home occupation is intended for businesses to be operated entirely within the primary building of the property. In this case, the business is being run out of the back-half of the property (not out of an accessory building). This request also asks that outside employees be allowed to work on the property. Additionally, there should be no outside evidence of home occupation other than a small 4x4-foot sign. The request today is to allow for outside storage, allow for additional employee, and operate entirely outside of the home. Home occupation license allows for 50% of a primary residence to be used for the business. In this case, more than 100% of the equivalent area of the home is being used to conduct business operations on the property. The home on the property is surrounded by a solid fence, with separate driveways for the house and business access. The rear of the property where business operations are located is surrounded by a split-rail fence. Beals presented photographs of the property, noting the equipment and vehicles being stored. Chair Shuff confirmed with Beals that this property was originally platted in the County and was then annexed into the City within the U-E Zone District. Beals confirmed this history. Beals also noted that this type of business is not normally permitted within the U-E Zone District. Shuff asked Beals to display the zone map of the City, to get a sense of context for where the zone districts abut and transition. The subject property does not abut a different zone district. Surrounding properties are primarily single-family residences. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – October 10, 2024 Lawton asked if this property is being used as a business today. Beals responded that the property is currently being used as a business, and that this application was generated based on complaint. If a desired business is not included in the list of approved use, there is process in place to establish a new use within a zone district. This process has not been engaged by the applicant. Commission member Carron questioned whether this situation may have been created in part by the past transition of the property from County to City. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Ruth Saaristo-Barber, owner, 6524 Lynn Dr, addressed the Commission and offered comment. She noted that she has been in the area since 1997, and this type of use has been going on in other similar properties in the area for a while now. Some lots have vehicle storage, livestock, and business operations in place. Saaristo-Barber supplied additional materials for consideration, including neighbor signature and photos. Saaristo-Barber explained that some vehicles used by the business require CDL license, requiring additional employees. Vehicles are generally only running in the lot for 5-10 minutes at a time as the enter/exit the lot. Additionally, the applicant explained that there is no HOA in the area, and she is willing to add more methods of screening and privacy. The lot has been in use in this manner since 2006 until now, when the complaint was lodged with the city. Coffman asked when the applicant took ownership of this property. Saaristo-Barber responded it was some time in the early 2000’s. Public Comment: Audience Member Kenley Carson, 417 Vivian St., Fort Collins, CO addressed the Commission and offered commented. Carson explained that their property and the subject property are separated by a small parcel. Carson noted that they are not the complainant and are being asked to clean up their area as well. There seems to have been a sweep of the entire area. Additionally, Carson asserted that: - This business is not owned by Ruth Saaristo-Barber, thus is not a home occupation. -Stated he had not received notification of re-zoning. -Noted there is lots of traffic up and down Vivian St, becoming more congested. -The subject property began as a rental yard. -Believes this should be tabled, stated that neighbors were unaware. Would like more time for investigation. -Believes re-zoning would hurt his property value. Commercial properties accessed by S College Ave. -Located directly east of the property. -Pictures submitted are not recent – currently there is much more fill dirt present. Chair Shuff and Staff Liaison Beals discussed noticing requirements for variance requests and change of use, noting that standard practice is to send Adjacent Property Owner notification to properties within a 150-foot radius of the subject property. Applicant Ruth Saaristo-Barber stated she was the owner of the business being operated from the subject property. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman suggested that the scale and scope of the current business operations is beyond what can be granted with a home occupation variance. This actually seems more in line with a re-zoning and/or re-use request. Based on Larimer County Assessor information, this property appears to have been purchased after annexation, so operations on-site were not grandfathered in. Chair Shuff noted that on one hand, transition from County to City can present challenges with existing uses. However, based on transaction timelines and history, the request is outside of what this Commission can evaluate. Shuff is not able to support variance. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 APPROVED Minutes – October 10, 2024 Commission member McCoy agreed with the comments of Coffman and Shuff, suggesting that this request ought to be made before the Planning and Zoning Commission, as this represents a commercial change of use. Vice-Chair Lawton noted that many variances and changes would need to be considered. Lawton stated that he would not like to set a precedent of approval rather than needing a re-zoning effort. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to DENY ZBA240026 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) and (f), finding that the variances as submitted would be detrimental to the public good; and the variances 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), in consideration of the following facts: the variance is larger than a home occupation; the size of the are being used is approximately half the minimum lot size in the U-E Zone District; the proposed use would include more than one employee that does not live on site; and the majority of the proposed home occupation is operating outside of the home. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 am Meeting Minutes were Approved during the November 14, 2024 LURC meeting by all members.