Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 06/10/2021 Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing 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 10, 2021 8:30 AM  CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members except Shields and Stockover were present.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the May 13,2021 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously, with Lawton abstaining.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) None.  APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210015 –DENIED Address: 4606 S. Mason St. Owner: 4606 S Mason St, LLC Petitioner: TJ Malone Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G)Table (G)(1) Project Description: This request is for the following variances: (1) Add a ground sign along W. Harmony Rd. where only one ground sign is allowed per frontage when it is part of a group of properties with shared vehicular access. (2) Add a ground sign along S. College Ave. where only one ground sign is allowed per frontage when it is part of a group of properties with shared vehicular access. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the new owner of the building is an appliance store and two ground signs are present on the property. The sign code has been updated to reduce sign clutter. This property shares vehicle access with other businesses (fast food restaurant, a brewery and others). There is already a shared tenant sign. The LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 June 10, 2021 request is to remove the nonconforming signs and build two new ones in their place in a similar location. The code requires that the signs be shared with all business that have shared vehicular access. The sign which hangs currently on the north corner of the building has been previously approved for a variance. The new sign would include an electronic digital portion. Structural alterations are not allowed for non-conforming signs. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the bottom of the sign. Beals stated that it is the digital part of the sign. Commission member Lawton asked whether any signs were being demolished. Beals stated the proposed plan is for the existing signs to come down and new signs were to be built. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, TJ Malone, 4606 S Mason St, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely There is not a lot of visibility to the establishment outside of the two signs. They are trying to update the signs and get more aesthetically pleasing signs. Signs would be illuminated and would last for years. It would also cut down on power. Commission Member Meyer stated that the sign proposals are in the same location as the old signs and wanted to know why the applicant thought the new signs would increase visibility. Applicant stated that it is more about the condition of the current signs and the need for update. The current tenant sign does not provide enough visibility. Meyer asked Beals for clarification on the code regarding repairing signs. He was wondering if the solution could be to repair the existing sign instead. Beals read portions of the code (3.8.7.4). No sign shall be structurally altered to preserve the sign. There are limitations for repair. Applicant said that removing signs would create a hardship. The clients bought the building for visibility on this busy intersection. Vice Chair LaMastra asked whether the corner projecting sign can be removed. She is concerned with sign clutter. Is the projecting sign and EMC panels necessary? Applicant stated that he thought it was necessary. The monument signs are attracting drivers. LaMastra wanted to know if there is any leeway regarding the clutter and impact. Can it be replaced with just a monument sign? Applicant stated he would have to speak with the owner. Audience Participation: none Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer does not see the hardship. The sign code seems to have been written for a property like this and it seems very intent. Commission Member Shuff thinks it’s creating more intensity. He noted there is already a large sign which was approved. He would be open to reconstructing existing signs, but wouldn’t be for the appeal as stated. LaMastra thinks that there is already enough signage. Commission member Lawton thinks that the code is there for a reason. He thinks the large sign on the corner is very visible. He doesn’t think there is any confusion as to what the building is. He does not see hardship. Commission Member McCoy agrees with Shuff. He thinks there is a lot of clutter on this corner. Shuff asked whether this should be tabled to propose something else. Beals shared some of the options available to the applicant and suggests a decision should be made on what’s being proposed. Lawton thinks it would be better to deny to set precedent for any future properties in the same situation. Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny ZBA210015 for the following reasons: Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing hardship that would prevent the client from being in compliance with the standard set in the code, and the existing tenant signs can also be used. Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, Lawton McCoy and LaMastra. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 June 10, 2021 2. APPEAL ZBA210020 - APPROVED Address: 400 9th St Owner/Petitioner: Michael Hutsell. Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b), 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to build an addition encroaching 16 feet into the required 20-foot front yard setback and encroaching 3 feet into the required 15-foot corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that it is a corner property (9th and Buckingham). Many of the homes in the area do not comply with the current setback standards. Request is to redo the front. There was a porch which was enclosed. The porch would be removed and habitable space would replace it. Existing vegetation would block the view of the addition. Commission member Meyer wanted to confirm the proposed addition – it would not be encroaching any more than what is already encroaching. Beals confirmed this. Vice Chair LaMastra asked what the impacts will be when the intersection is widened. Beals answered that the Engineering department usually works around this. Applicant Presentation: Applicant, Michael Hutsell, 400 9th St addressed the board and agreed to the remote proceedings. The number one priority is to increase the curb appeal. All neighbors are in favor of this. There are other homes in the neighborhood with similar setbacks. They are across from an open field and receive a good amount of wind and dust. The Lemay bypass is going to reroute Lemay traffic to the east of their neighborhood. Existing 9th street (Lemay) will become a neighborhood street. Buckingham will connect With the proposal they will be increasing driver sight lines. Commission member Lawton asked about the current protection in the front of the house. Applicant answered that there was some asbestos abatement on the property. Audience Participation: none Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff thinks this is straight forward and will be in support. Commission member Lawton thinks the design is good and understands the need for better visibility on this street corner. Commisssion members Meyer and McCoy and LaMastra are also in support. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to approve ZBA210020 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; The original structure was constructed under County standards; An existing enclosed porch is in the same location of the proposed addition; The proposed addition will be partially open. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Lawton, McCoy . Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Land Use Review Commission Page 4 June 10, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA210021- APPROVED AND DENIED Address: 1009 Morgan St Owner/Petitioner: Joseph Manning Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to build a 12'x16' shed encroaching 12 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback and encroaching 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that adjacent properties have similar setbacks. The property in the back has never been platted and the owner is the same as the adjacent property on Garfield. A tree may need to be moved to meet the setback. There is a 20 foot utility easement which makes it difficult to build. A building permit would not be able to be issued until the easement is vacated. This would be a condition if it is approved. Commission member McCoy asked if there are utilities in the easement. Beals replied that he was unsure. It would require contacting all utility providers and requesting a vacation. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Lora Manning, 1009 Morgan St. addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held remotely. There is a bulkhead on the house and this would be a problem with moving the shed to the North. The entire backyard has been improved and is being transitioned to xeriscape/hardscape. There would only be about 5 feet of walking space between the bulkhead and shed if it was moved to the North. Audience Participation: Beals read customer feedback received regarding this variance. Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff thinks its challenging to support something that’s in an easement. He will be in support of staff recommendations. Vice Chair LaMastra thinks the maps are not labeled correctly and this is confusing. Beals clarified that staff recommendation of approval for a 5-foot setback is based on condition that the utility easement is vacated. This would be a separate process that the applicant would have to go through. Commission member Lawton doesn’t have an issue with the side setback. Commission member Shuff would be in favor of tabling. Vice Chair LaMastra thinks that engineering would reduce the easement to the same size as the adjacent properties. She does not have a problem with the 5-foot setback. She asked if an approval for a range of feet was appropriate. Beals affirmed. Commission member Meyer is comfortable with Staff’s findings, noting that easements are difficult to correct. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to deny the reduction of the south side setback of ZBA210021 for the following reasons: Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards, Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing how the proposal would be nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood, and to approve the reduction of the rear yard setback with the condition that the easement is vacated with the following reasons: it is not detrimental to the public good; The abutting property if developed would be assigned a side-yard setback of 5 feet, The shed is 12 feet in length along the 76.5-foot property line, The encroachment should minimally increase shadows on the west abutting property Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Meyer, Lawton, LaMastra Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM DENIED the south side-yard encroachment and APPROVED a 10ft encroachment into the rear-yard setback, provided the easement is vacated. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 June 10, 2021 4. APPEAL ZBA210022 - APPROVED Address: 301 E. Drake Rd. Owner: Christ United Methodist Church Petitioner: Gary Turner Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.7.1(J)(2)(b)(1) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow a new electronic message center (EMC) sign to encroach 15 feet into the required 100-foot setback to a residential property. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there is approximately 100-foot separation to the structure but not to the property line. The property sits on a 4-lane arterial street. There are other illuminations currently on the street. The house most impacted would be directly to the north. The proposed sign would meet all other standards to the code. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Gary Turner and Aaron Gray, 301 E Drake Rd, addressed the board and agreed to have the appeal heard remotely. After submitting the variance request, he learned that moving the sign would cost moving utilities as well. The existing sign is 7 feet tall and the new sign would be shorter and less intrusive. A sign design has not been agreed upon yet. The applicant shared some design concepts with the Commission. They have received no objections from neighbors. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff thinks this is a reasonable request and will be in support. Commission member Meyer thinks that headlights from cars would be more intrusive than the sign and will be in support. Commission members Lawton and McCoy will be in support. Vice Chair noted that the view from the north will not change. Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve ZBA210022 for the following reasonsunder section 2.10.4H: The variance is not detrimental to the public good, The digital portion of the sign does not face the north neighboring properties, The house directly across to the north is setback at minimum 15 feet from the property line, the new sign will be in the same place as the existing sign. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Shuff, Lawton, McCoy, LaMastra, Meyer Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED  OTHER BUSINESS There was discussion about when in-person would be resumed. Beals mentioned that it was agreed upon to meet remotely through July. All commission members would be in support of meeting in person in August. LaMastra added that the hybrid meetings are very fragmented and would be in support of a full in person meeting.  ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:35 AM.