Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 12/09/2021 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 DECEMBER 9, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the November 12, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously, with La Mastra and McCoy abstaining. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210047 – APPROVED Address: 1003 W Horsetooth Rd Owner/Petitioner: Greg Thornton Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Project Description: This is a request to allow a 4-foot-tall sign and a 2.92-foot-tall sign to be installed in the residential sign district that limits these signs to a maximum of 2 feet in height. The business is changing locations; the old location is not in the residential sign district and the new location is. Staff Presentation: Prior to Staff Presentation, Vice Chair La Mastra disclosed that she is working on another project in this area, just south of the property; La Mastra indicated that she did not feel that she would be in conflict of interest by participating in the discuss ion. City legal counsel Claire Havelda asked for the record if La Mastra if she had any financial interest in this project; La Mastra responded that she did not. Havelda asked La Mastra that there is no way that LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 December 9, 2021 her work on the other project would influence her decisions on this project. La Mastra responded that this was correct. Commission member Ian Shuff also disclosed that he was working on the same project as Vice Chair La Mastra, stating that the project is a mixed-use building on the same property. Shuff commented that he is in now way influenced in his decision making regarding the case at hand. Havelda asked for the record that there is no financial benefit for Shuff; Shuff answered in the affirmative. Havelda confirmed that there is no conflict of interest. Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located near the corner of S Shields and W Horsetooth, and sits mid-block. The building has been a restaurant in the past and is now being converted into use as a bike shop. The previous location for the bike shop was located at 4612 S Mason St and is now in the process of moving operations to the 1003 W Horsetooth location. The applicant is seeking to move signs currently in place on the former location and affix them to the building at the new location. Beals indicated that the primary issue at hand is that the new location is located within the residential sign district. The mixed-use development does include residential units, as do the blocks across the street and abutting the development property. Beals presented an illustration of the entry sign element itself as well as how it would appear on the building as proposed. The backing of the sign and mounting brackets would be consid ered part of the sign and extend beyond the allowable 2-feet maximum height. Additionally, a sign proposed for installation on the side of the building contains portions of lettering that would exceed beyond the allowable 2-feet maximum height. Beals provided additional views of the building in situ to provide context for discussion. Vice Chair La Mastra asked Beals to clarify which portions of the side sign are out of compliance. It seems that the way the applicant has highlighted the sign plan to indicate overages may not be accurate. Beals clarified that the applicant may have been considering the two elements shown as two separate signs when in fact, under code, they would be one single sign. La Mastra questioned if we have the actual dimensions for total height from top of the “V” to the bottom of the orange panel. Beals indicated he would need to perform some additional research and/or receive that data directly from the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Greg Thornton, 4612 S Mason St, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Thornton read a prepared statement to the Board, which reads as follows: “Hello, my name is Gregg Thornton, owner of proVelo Bicycles, currently located at 4612 S Mason St. I opened by business in 2010 and have become a proud member of the Fort Collins cycling community, and a productive member of the local business community. I am here today because I will soon be moving my business to a new location at 1003 W Horsetooth. I won’t go into the details of why I Am moving, but in short, short of fighting a long legal battle, I’ve essentially been coerced out of my current location. Fortunately, I found anew location in abuilding that has sat unoccupied for the last two years, and plan to give it a new purpose. It was formerly several different restaurants that were not successful in this location. I believe my business will be a great fit here , and bring something new to the shopping center that it has lacked in the past. Part of my relocation plan was to move my existing signage to the new location, but it was brought to my attention that they do not comply with the Land Use Codes. So, I have requested a variance to avoid the expensive process of replacing them. The variance request asks that I prov e hardship due to this issue, and I hope to prove that today. I am sure all of you are aware that the last year and has presented a very difficult business environment, with supply chain and staffing issues that have not been easy to manage. Bicycle shops were deemed ‘essential’ at the on-set of COVID, so we have been open throughout the pandemic. But navigating the public’s safety as well as my staff’s safety, in addition to the broken supply chain and difficulties staffing, has presented challenges and additional expense I was not expecting. While there is great interest in cycling, getting product has been an ongoing issue that is still far from resolved, and has made it difficult to meet our customers’ needs. DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 December 9, 2021 To add insult to injury, I now find myself having to move my business, which is an expensive process that I was not prepared for, and once again I really wasn’t given an option. To add additional insult, I am now seeing a slow-down in business that is difficult to explain and is adding stress to an already stressful time. And now I am being asked to throw away my perfectly good signs over a nominal issue, which I will also address today, and spend tens of thousands of dollars to replace them. This will clearly create additional hardship on my business, not only from a financial standpoint, but also adds an additional task to my lengthy list of tasks I must perform to successfully move my business. This also struck me – it seems that throwing away two perfectly good signs into an already- overfilled landfill is not a very sound environmental policy from a City that prides itself on being green and protecting the environment. The hardship this policy will create is over an issue that truly is nominal. My plan was to move two signs, as you saw, to the new location. One will be placed on the back of the building along Horsetooth Rd., one will be placed over the front door, but facing the center’s parking lot. In general, the sign along Horsetooth complies with zoning requirements because does use individual letters and is not a box sign. The issue is over the fact that two of the letters are 25 inches tall, and one of them is 25 5/8 inches tall, and the code calls for the letters to be 24 inches. (The applicant paused his reading and acknowledged that there was some confusion about the overall height of the sign, but he still believes that taking those overages into account, this is still a nominal issue. Applicant commented that really what we are talking about here is a 1 inch to 1 5/8-inch difference, which is nominal.) [Reading of written statement continues] The sign over the front door has individual letters that are all under 22 inches tall, much shorter than the 24 inches the code calls for. The issue is really over the sign’s backing, which is an architectural feature rather than a part of the sign. The sign was designed to go in front of a window and is perforated to let the light shine through into the building, and it gives the letters something to be mounted on since they can’t be mounted to a window. At the new location, the sign will be mounted over a window as it was in the old location, so the backing will provid e the same function as it did before. Furthermore, the sign will be tucked into an alcove, as you saw, over the front door, and will look like it was made for the spot. I think this, too, can be viewed as nominal. Both signs are attractive, well-designed signs that will look great on the new building, and because of the nominal design issue, will not look out of place. So, I hope my presentation today not only provides evidence of the hardship this will create, if the variance is not approved, but also gives conclusive evidence that issue truly is nominal and inconsequential. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to state my case and trust that the Board will understand and approve my variance request. Vice Chair La Mastra questioned if the applicant knew the overall height of the north-facing sign, from the top of the “V” to the bottom of the orange frame element. Staff member Beals responded that when he applied the scale tool to the plans that were provided, it measured 35 inches, or 2.8 feet. Applicant Thornton responded that the sign is noted as 2.9 feet approximately in the variance request. Commission member Lawton asked for clarification regarding which sides of the building the signs would be located, and asked Beals to demonstrate using the aerial view of the property. Beals indicated that the perforated, over-window sign will be located on the south side of the building, facing the parking lot. The individual letter sign will be placed on the north side of the building, facing Horsetooth Ave. Lawton remarked the placement would provide visibility to traffic flow on the north as well as pedestrian/parking level traffic to the south. Audience Participation: Audience member Kevin Bowes, with Action Sign Co., 1413 Webster Ave., Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Board and agreed to participate in the hearing remotely. Bowes indicated that we was the designer responsible for the design of the signs. Bowes explained that during the design process, they were interpreting the residential sign code to allow a maximum of 24-inch letter height, rather than an overall sign height. That interpretation may be inaccurate. As explained to the owner of Action DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 December 9, 2021 Signs, Randy Lyric, the orange “bicycle” element counts separately within the residentia l sign district as it pertains to the overall sign height. Again, this may be an inaccurate interpretation of the code. When measured together, to overall height of the north sign is 35 inches, as noted by Beals. Bowes commented the applicant did state the case clearly and completely. Bowes drew attention to a few additional small details, commenting a previous tenant in the building did employ a sign of approximately the same size and square footage, when the building was being used as a restaurant. Regarding the nominal aspect of the justification for variance, Bowe’s noted that the overhanging portions of letters are symptoms of the typography, and in fact some other typographies that would meet code could ultimately produce more of an impact on the surrounding residential properties. The ascenders and descenders on the letters are only nominally outside of the code, and when you interpret the code on its intent to limit signages’ impact on residences nearby, the impact of this project is very nominal. Additionally, Bowe’s urged that the perforated portion of the south sign be considered framework, so as not to endure hardship of sign re-production for that space. The backing has no graphics or design of their own, and in fact the perforated “design” is actually a functional element that allows light to penetrate the window. Commission member Lawton asked Bowes if either of the signs were illuminated. Bowes indicated that both signs are internally illuminated channel letter sets. Lawton asked if there ar e any timing mechanisms planned for the illumination of the signs. Bowes responded the signs will be controlled along with the exterior lighting systems of the building. Bowes stated that usually an electrician is employed for final hook up of the signs, and they will set the controls to the customer’s standards as well as to applicable codes. Most signs are turned off at some point during the night to save electricity, usually around 11pm. Signs are generally only illuminated in the evenings, and most use either a pre- set timer or a photo-cell timer. Commission member Lawton asked Beals what the limitations on sign size would be if this property were not located in a residential district. Beals responded that if this sign, as presented, were not located within a residential district then it would meet code requirements . The business is moving from a non-residential district, and their signs were acceptable. Lawton asked if there were any limitations on illumination within the residential district. Beals responded that most signs are to be turned off based on closing time of the business unless the illumination of the sign is helping in some safety consideration. Commission Discussion: Vice Chair La Mastra noted there is residential located across Horsetooth; however, the buildings are set back quite a bit from the street and are behind a significant stand of evergreen trees. La Mastra shared the opinion that neither of these signs are truly adjacent to residential uses. There are residential blocks surrounding this particular development, but the north-facing sign is adjacent to arterial street separation in addition to significant landscaping and another parking lot before a residential building. The south-facing side is adjacent to a large retail parking lot. La Mastra believes that given the context of the site, this does present a very nominal impact to any surrounding residential property. Commission member Shuff stated his agreement with La Mastra’s assessment that any impact to surrounding residential property would be minimal. Additionally, Shuff noted that there is a 7-11 immediately east of the residential development, so this is not the only commercial development in the immediate area. Despite this being a residential area, the entire corner is a commercial development. Therefore, there is an expectation of signage and sign illumination associated with retail properties. Shuff feels it is nominal and inconsequential given the size of the letters and elements. The south side sign’s mounting bracket really blend into the surrounding window and won’t be read as a portion of the sign itself. Shuff stated his support for approval of the variance request. Commission member Stockover stated his support for approval of the variance request. Commenting that this was to be his last meeting, Stockover voiced his opinion that 90% of the argument presented by the applicant does not hold weight in the Commission’s purview to review the appl ication. We have to remember that times are tough now, but we are approving something forever. Making exceptions DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 December 9, 2021 now because times are temporarily difficult is not best practice. Code does not vary based on economics. Perhaps staff could put out a letter that details what factors can actually be considered. Stockover commented that this is a perfect location for a bike shop. Despite the multiple details and justifications provided by an applicant, we must make our decisions based solely on the signs in question and language of the code. Chair Shields commented that during his more than seven years serving on the Board, he has never quite understood the delineation between residential and commercial sign districts. This corner in question is clearly a commercial corner. The nearby 7-11 has a canopy that glows all night, so definitely in the context of this corner this is nominal and inconsequential. Shields confirms his support for approval of the variance request. Commission member Lawton stated his agreement with previous members’ comments, commenting that the signs are well designed and fit the character of the building. If controls for late-night illumination are available, that would be great. Lawton confirms his support for approval of the variance request. Vice Chair La Mastra agreed with Stockover’s comments, noting that this property is actually zoned neighborhood-commercial, which speaks to the dual nature of this area. La Mastra recommend to Noah Beals that perhaps something to talk about with staff in the future is the need for potential compromise within sign code in these areas that have both neighborhood and commercial zoning and codes. La Mastra referred to Stockover’s comments, agreeing that the presentation seemed to make more of a hardship argument rather than nominal and inconsequential impact. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA210047 – 1003 W Horsetooth Rd., based on the following findings: the var iance is not detrimental to the public good; the north-side increased height is limited to only certain letters of the sign; the south sign increased height is for the background; the background is semi -transparent. Therefore, the granting of the modification of standard would not diverge from the standard except 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, Stockover, Lawton, Shields, Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210048 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 400 Jackson Ave Owner/Petitioner: Michael and Katie Rusnak Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to construct a fence along portions of the south and east property line that vary in height between 6 feet and 7 feet. Based on the slope of the property, some sections of the fence will be taller than the 6-foot maximum that is allowed for fences built in a side yard or a rear yard. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located on the corner of W Magnolia Ave and Jackson Ave, directly across the street from City Park. Beals offered some pertinent history of the property, noting there was a house on the property previously which was demolished and replaced with the current residence. Additionally, over time there has been a subdivision of the original single lot into three separate parcels. The adjacent property to the south shares an uneven property line that jags north a bit from the Jackson Ave. side. Beals noted the parcel drawing included in applicant materials doesn’t show current bui ldings on- site, but instead depicts parcel lines and building envelopes/setbacks for those parcels. The one DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 6 December 9, 2021 building depicted on the plans no longer exists. The hand-drawn diagram of the parcels does depict the current structures. The red line indicates where the fence line is increased in height. The increase is not consistent, but instead varies from 6 feet to 7 feet depending on changes in gradient and applicant design plans. Beals shared an additional diagram provided by the applicant which describes the shared property line between the applicant’s property and the adjacent property at 1237 W Magnolia. This east property line is a rear line for the applicant (400 Jackson) but a side line for 1327 W Magnolia. The south lot line as a shared side line between applicant property and 404 Jackson; there appears to be an encroachment by the existing structure at 404 Jackson. Additional renderings of the proposed fence and patio were shared by Beals, which depict a finished pool, patio, landscape planters, surrounded by new fencing. The increased fence height is depicted in the renderings. Beals noted that increased fence height needs to be six feet within the setback, but beyond the setback in can be increased in height, it would just require a building permit. This is similar to if a building similar height were to be placed beyond the setback, thus requiring a permit. Beals also noted that part of the fence did already go under construction, and it was noticed during some other inspections that the height of the fence would require a building permit. That is how the City became aware of the fence height being in violation of code. So, coming forward to the Board today is part of coming into compliance. Beals presented photos of the fence in its current state, describing how close the fence and property lines come to adjacent properties. Vice Chair La Mastra asked for clarification regarding the lot line shared between 400 Jackson and 404 Jackson. In one diagram, it appears that 404 is encroaching on the property of 400 Jackson. However, within the plan view of the pool, it appears that the “notched-out” area is included in their lot. It is unclear what is actually happening there, perhaps the applicant can provide additional detail. Beals commented that his understanding was that the structure on 404 Jackson does encroach; Beals asked if the applicant could provide any additional information regarding that lot line. Applicant Presentation: Katie Rusnak, 400 Jackson Ave, Fort Collins, CO addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Rusnak explained that the had submitted a lengthy narrative with her application, which she assumed the Board had already had a chance to read. Rus nak then read a brief portion of the narrative, stating: The purpose of this variance request to ask permission to construct/maintain a privacy fence of greater than 6 feet around our backyard. The exact height of this fence varies with the slope of our backyard, but in no portion should exceed 7 feet. In some areas of the yard the fence is actually well under 6 feet and even closer to 5 feet. The two fence lines that would exceed 6 feet most significantly run only between private properties, with little to no visibility from public streets. These portions are highlighted in the attached site plan for our lot. Our desire to have a privacy fence greater that 6 feet is based on the following rationale: 1. The close proximity of our home and yard to our neighbors 2. The very close proximity of our neighbors’ houses and other structures to the property line 3. The fact that we have a backyard swimming pool which increases the need for a sight and sound barrier 4. The fact that the grade of our yard slopes significantly, with the lowest portion along the rear/east property line creating a fence that naturally gets taller as it runs towards the rear of the lot, while visually feeling shorter because the grade there is lower. “ Rusnak added both of her adjacent neighbors have emailed her and spoken extensively in-person regarding the fence. Both neighbors have sent comments to the Board regarding the variance application. Rusnak stated both neighbors are generally supportive of the variance request, with a few caveats. DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 7 December 9, 2021 Chair Shields asked Noah Beals to confirm if the had received the neighbors’ emails. Beals stated the emails were received this morning, and he could read them to the Board during comment portion. Vice Chair La Mastra asked the applicant to clarify the discrepancy between lot lines and encroachments as depicted between the two plans provided. The applicant stated her surprise when looking at the highlighted plan provided by the City, noting that she was surprised and confused to the see the encroachment of 4040 Jackson onto their lot. They were not previously aware of this encroachment. The applicant stated when the new fence was constructed, they took down the previous fence with the permission of the neighbors at 404 Jackson. The new fence was placed exactly along the same line as the previous fence. Applicant stated the new fence is most likely completely within their property line, as they were not aware that a portion of the south lot notches out further south. Applicant Rusnak explained that 400 Jackson Ave was originally one lot with one original house. When the applicant became involved, the developer had already purchased and subdivided the original lot into three parcels; homes had already been constructed on the adjacent parcels (404 Jackson and 1327 W Magnolia). Thus, 400 Jackson was the last of the three new parcels to be purchased and built out. The lot line encroachment would have already been present at the time the applicant p urchased the lot and built their existing residence. Applicant stated the plan provided by the City is probably the most-accurate representation of lot lines and adjacent properties. Audience Participation: Noah Beals offered to read the emails provided by neighbors of 400 Jackson Ave. The first email was sent by Blake and Meredith Naughton, residing at 404 Jackson Ave. Their email and attached letter are transcribed below: Mr. Beals, My wife and I are unable to make it to the Commission hearing this morning for our neighbors’ fence variance appeal, ZBA210048, so we would like to submit the attached letter. In short, we support the fence as constructed on our property line, do not comment on the other property line, and raise a related concern about drainage. Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information from us. Sincerely, Blake Naughton [Attached letter:] Dear Commissioners: This letter is written in response to the Adjacent Property Owner Notification of Appeal ZBA210048, requesting a modification of the Land Use Code by our neighbors Michael and Katie Rusnak, who are located at 400 Jackson Avenue. We own the property to the south of the Rusnaks, at 404 Jackson Avenue, and reside there full time. The proposal description references a request relative to both the south and east sides of their property; as their south side is the only one affecting our property, we will limit our comments to that and will not comment on the east side. The Rusnaks communicated with us proactively about their fence project, sharing ideas and conceptual photos of possible designs. We agreed that the best course would be to allow their contractor to remove our existing shared fence, which was constructed by the original owners of our home, before the Rusnak’s’ home was built. We preferred this to them building a new fence against ours existing (and therefore possibly seeing both). Their contrac tor agreed to connect the new fence to our existing fence at the southeast corner of their property (the northeast corner of ours). Further, due to details of their fence design, the existing gate entirely on our property between the north side of DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 8 December 9, 2021 our home and their new fence no longer connected properly. Therefore, the Rusnaks replaced it with a new gate, at their expense. The fence between our properties appears to be substantively complete, although we understand additional wood boards are planned to be added on our side of the fence to cover decorative metal panels with see-through patterns. The new fence as currently constructed runs in height approximately a few inches over 6 feet at the west end to over 7 ½ feet at the east end, as measured from ground level on our side of the fence. Although this creates a fairly large fence as seen from our backyard, from the views in our property, we do not find this objectionable and support the fence staying at this height. Further, as the Rusnak’s’ larger project involved installing a swimming pool and an elevated pool deck along the entirety of our shared fence line, we believe the additional fence screening is beneficial and support the variance to keep the current height and limit views from their pool. However, we do not wish for the fence to be any higher than it is currently constructed. Finally, although not the subject of this appeal, we would like to raise a related concern. Their new pool deck was constructed several feet above grade, with a steep drop-off between it and our shared fence. We have already noticed gravel and dirt flowing under the fence into our yard from the Rusnak’s’ yard, despite the fact that there has not been very significant rainfall since the fence was installed. Further, during pool construction in May, a large sinkhole developed on our property just a few feet from the fence, and near the window well of our basement guest room. We are therefore worried that during a significant rain event or during significant snowmelt, our yard and home may be adversely affected by substantial run-off. We are not sure what might be done to mitigate this possibility, and thought it might be important now, before construction is complete, to ask the city for guidance on how to proceed on studying the risks and recommending a drainage plan. Thank you for soliciting this feedback. We are grateful for the kind relationship we have developed with our neighbors over the two years we have lived here, and are happy to discuss any options goi ng forward if needed. Sincerely, Blake and Meredith Naughton Beals continued, reading an email sent by Judy Dorsey and Dan Epstein, who reside at 1327 W Magnolia. Their email and attached letter are transcribed below: Hi Noah, Thank you for your assistance sharing our email comments below with the Land Use Review Commission. You’ll note that we introduced a second concern about stormwater drainage that we’d like the City’s assistance with navigating. We realize this specific appeal may not be the best place to provide comments on this second topic but would like to raise it with you and the Land Use Review Commission to clarify the process for addressing this concern. Here’s our input to the Land Use Review Commission: Dear Land Use Review Commission Members, We're located at 1327 W. Magnolia St., adjacent to the east side of the Rusnak property at 400 Jackson Ave. Thank you for the opportunity to share our input on Appeal # ZBA210048 – a proposal to construct a fence along portions of the south and east side of the Rusnak property line, reported to vary in height between 6 and 7 feet. DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 9 December 9, 2021 We provided an inquiry to the City about the fence earlier this fall, but have not filed any complaints and we have shared our written comments to you in advance with the Rusnak’s. We’ve been happy neighbors for over a decade so want to be sure a pool project and fence don’t overshadow more important aspects of harmonious living in an amazing neighborhood. Ultimately, we’re mostly comfortable with this variance request, except for a particular portion of the fence that impacts our views from our kitchen and home office where we spend a great deal of time. Here are our points of clarification and areas where we’re not comfortable with the variance proposal as currently written: -First, we don’t wish to speak to anything along the south property It affects our neighbors the Naughtons more directly, so we defer to their preferences on this matter. ·Next, it’s important to note that the fence as currently constructed measures 7’ 3” on our side of the property line at the southeast corner of the Rusnak lot, which is greater than the 7’ variance request. ·Even though it is not ideal and exceeds the variance proposal, we’re comfortable with a compromise that extends this fence height along most of our shared east/west property line, but only up until our fence gate along this span. Our goal is to preserve the views described above and not have a new higher fence line running through our frequent line of sight. ·Specifically, we’re requesting that the fence height be stepped back down to be code compliant, not exceeding 6’ anywhere from our gate northward. This includes the northern segment of fence on the Magnolia-facing side of the lot. ·From measuring from our side of the property line, the northern Magnolia-facing side of the fence looks to also exceed 6’ along this east-west span, even though this segment of fence was not included in the variance proposal. ·Regarding measurements from our side of the property line versus what the Rusnak’s may be measuring from their side of the property line, an important piece of context in this variance proposal is that the fence is part of a larger pool project that included building up a pool deck significantly above prior grade and very close to the fence lines. We’d like to confirm a common understanding that fence height in this variance request is measured from the original ground elevation at our shared property line, which effectively means well below fence height at pool deck level. ·Lastly, despite our continued appreciation for and desire to maintain good relationships with our neighbors the Rusnak’s, we’ve unfortunately lost confidence in their contractor to follow code. Therefore, we’re reintroducing an even more pressing concern than the fence height. And that is our concern with stormwater drainage after converting the entire backyard from predominantly permeable landscape with turf to virtually all flat hardscapes. We’d like assurances that there is an updated drainage plan with newly installed solutions as required to accommodate the increased runoff from this project. - For historical context, we’ve had problems with stormwater drainage between these properties in the past. Solutions were installed prior to the Rusnak’s purchasing their home and include drainage pipe at the very sight where the new pool deck is now located. It’s not clear whether these past engineered solutions are still in place and whether they’ve been expanded to accommodate increased flows. Thank you for including our comments for the planning boards’ consideration, Sincerely, Judy Dorsey, PE and Dan Epstein 1327 W. Magnolia St. DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 10 December 9, 2021 Commission Discussion: Vice Chair La Mastra asked Beals to explain how fence height is measured, when essentially a wall is being built between two properties. It may be seven feet on one side but more than seven feet when measured from a neighbor’s side. Beals explained that fence heights are measured at the grade level directly under the fence. It is true that you cannot alter the grade to increase allowable fence height. It should be measure from original grade. La Mastra asked if we are actually approving the height as measured from the east and south property lines, rather than the pool deck surface which has been significantly built up above grade. Beals asked the applicant to confirm if the grade does in fact change where the fence is located. Applicant Rusnak offered additional description, utilizing the corner-view photograph of the pool deck and fence where the three parcels intersect. This is the site where neighbors are measuring the fence height over seven feet. When measured from the inside of the fence, the applicant is determining a height right at seven feet. Applicant is measuring from the original grade, from the ground on the backside of the fence, not the pool deck. The few-inches difference may be a result of the lot’s continued slope downhill as it progresses east. An additional section of fence along the east property line, abutting the Naughton’s garage, is actually higher. Perhaps right at that intersection they are achieving a higher measurement, closer to 7.5 feet. It seems the Naughton’s may be okay wit h this as long as the fence height steps down as it approaches Magnolia Ave. La Mastra questioned the location of the gate noted in the Dorsey-Epstein email. Beals indicated the location of the gate within the photographs. Rusnak explained when the old fence was taken down, the Dorsey-Epstein residence preferred a different style of fence and maintained their existing style of gate. They would like the adjacent fence lines to be lower than seven feet so as not to block an existing bay window. The Rusnaks are working with their fence contractor to ensure gates and fence panels in that area are not to be higher than six feet. Chair Shields shared his opinion that generally fence heights need to be measured from the property they are being built on to determine final measured height under code. La Mastra agreed with Shields, drawing attention to the difference in grade present between the ground and the pool deck. Applicant Rusnak described from their back door there is a raised deck with two steps down to ground level. That is the level that the pool has been installed. Because the yard slopes so far to the east, the areas was built up with concrete to cause it to be elevated. However, the concrete ends some inches before the fence on both sides, and the fence itself is anchored directly to the ground at grade. On the east property line, there is a small gap between the applicant’s new fence and the Dorsey -Eptstein’s existing fence. Commission member Lawton asked for clarification surrounding the height of the metal fence posts depicted in the photographs. Lawton asked two questions. First, to Noah Beals: do we measure fence height by the posts or by the top edge of the fence panels? Beals responded that both elements (post and panels) must be measured and comply with fence height code. Lawton noted the measurements included in the materials did not measure to the top of the posts. If that is the case, then what we are discussing is actually a taller fence than seven feet. La Mastra added her understanding that construction had been paused, and more wood slats were actually planned to be installed between the posts. Applicant Rusnak confirmed La Mastra’s assertion, stating it is one hundred percent correct. On the south side, the fence has been completed and the posts and wood panels are the same height. When construction of the fence began on the east side, between the Rusnak and Dorsey-Epstein properties, that’s when the issue was raised regarding fence height. Construction was stopped at that point. Currently, the wood on the east side of the fence is at the allowed six-foot height. Pending the outcome of this variance request, the additional height will either be added, or the fence and posts will be brought into compliance with code. Lawton clarified that the fence as currently constructed is non-conforming and awaiting approval of the variance. The applicant concurred, indicating that if approved the fence would be built to the requested DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 11 December 9, 2021 seven-plus foot height; if denied, existing posts would be cut d own to confirm with allowable height under code. Commission member Stockover asked the applicant how the existing metal panels would be finished if the variance was approved, and the fence height were to be increased. Would wood be placed over the top edge of the metal panels to maintain consistent height? Are more metal panels being added? Are the edges of the metal panel and wood panels to be left at differing heights? Applicant stated that if approved, the metal panels would be uninstalled to allow for the installation of wood planks and/or additional metal panels at the base of the existing panels to achieve a consistent seven -foot height along the top edge of the fence. Stockover shared his opinion there is too much going on with this application to feel comfortable with approving at this point. Stockover asked Beals what it would take to go out on -site and take some photos and measurements from the affected property owners’ perspective. Beals responded that if the Board decided to table the item to next meeting, we would need to work with the adjacent property owners and the applicant to arrange permission to be on their properties to take measurements ourselves, as a neutral party in this discussion. It seems plausible we could do that before next month’s meeting. Stockover commented that if he were to be here next month, an on-site visit might be a great idea. Stockover has some familiarity with this lot due to some earlier speculation and touring of the original lot. With that said, this lot is fully mature with lots of trees and leaves. Effects of rainwater and drainage could definitely impact leaves and debris bunching and collecting at certain areas. It is hard to determine from the photos what is finished height and what is under construction. There are way too many questions to be comfortable with approval at this point. While we don’t want to hold up construction, our decision is a permanent decision. A decision could be more -comfortably made with additional measurements, view sheds (including alleys), etc. Stockover acknowledged that with all that said, he will not be present next month due to term limits and would defer to the remaining members of the Board for a final determination. Beals commented that as far as inspections go, because the fence is over six feet and requires a building permit, we City would be doing an inspection and at that time could verify the fence is measured to whatever height the Board approves. Chair Shields commented that the grading issue that has been brought up during this application is not really part of this request. Claire Havelda concurred with Shields’ assessment, stating that the issue of grading is beyond the purview of this Board for this Hearing. Shields commented it appeared the neighbors to the east are okay with the higher fence line, up until it reaches their side -yard fence. Vice Chair La Mastra commented she understands that there are other issues the neighbors have. In the past when we have approved encroachment into setbacks or other similar items that are affecting drainage for other properties, we must think about that. However, this fence height does not affect the drainage problems that are there. It appears that both neighbors are fine with the fence as proposed, except for lowering it to six feet past the adjacent gate at the Dorsey-Epstein residence. They need to continue to coordinate to resolve the grading issue by the pool deck; again, this issue is outside of the purview of this Board. The only questions remaining is if measurement for height is being taken from the applicant’s or neighbors’ side of the fence. La Mastra stated her support for approval of the variance. Commission member Meyer commented that while this applicat ion is about fence height, all he would need to see is a plan of the fence with measurements made from native grade, showing total height, in five-foot increments. And yet, we don’t see that information. We are not to be expected to guess, estimate and speculate what the height of the fence is from pictures and descriptions. All we need is a simple plan of the fence showing what the height is from native grade. Since this fence has been built, and there is a lot of discussion of grading changes, who is to say what native grade is? We aren’t, that’s not our job. Someone needs to determine that and bring that information to the Board. We can’t DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 12 December 9, 2021 approve an application for fence height and not be given information regarding fence height. How can grade be that different from one side of the fence to the other, when the fence is only 2-3 inches wide? Is that grade change native? Is that a retaining wall? Did it occur during construction? We shouldn’t be wasting our time trying to guess and estimate fence height. Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments offered by Meyer, and commented this discussion started with confusion regarding lot lines and encroachment, which is still undetermined. Lawton stated that we still don’t have the information necessary to make a decision. Lawton would be willing to take a look at the application next month if and when more information is available. Lawton recommends tabling the item; at this point he would not be in support of the application based on the lack of information currently possessed/presented. La Mastra urges the Board that we need to be very clear in the information we are requesting from the applicant. Based on previous comments from the Board, it sounds like we are asking for fence heights in five-foot increments, as well as fence heights measured from the applicant’s property as well as from the neighbors’ properties. Meyer confirms La Mastra’s synopsis, again questioning how the grade could be so different from one side of the fence to the other. We need to know more about the conditions of the native grade and any retaining structures that might be present. Commission member Shuff commented if we isolate this discussion to just the fencing, which is our purview, he is more comfortable with the request base d on the support letters of the neighbors and application materials. Shuff agrees that there is some ambiguity regarding what we are measuring to; we may have one measurement in the packet but need more. If the Board would prefer to gain more clarity and table the item, that would be ok; if the Board would like to put forth a motion to approve, Shuff could also support that as well. Stockover confirms that the applicant has been informed that an inspection will be performed when the construction of the fence has been completed. So, if the fence is built six feet above their grade, rather than native grade, there is a red flag that could be tagged during inspection. The risk is totally shifted to the applicant if in the motion we state that we would be in support of approval upon inspection if the fence is measured from native grade. We could approve the application with the understanding that the contractor needs to double-check measurements. Chair Shields agreed with Stockover’s comments, and stated the City is ultimately going to have to verify the height of the fence; if it turns out to be to high, it will have to be cut down to compliance. If it is taller than what is approved today, it will have to be modified. Shields stated his approval based on conditions as discussed. Noah Beals clarified that either in the motion or in acknowledgement from the applicant, that the height of the fence being requested from the neighbor’s winged gate/fence north, that the fence height will truly be six feet or lower. If acknowledged to be correct, that element with either no longer be part of the request today, or it’s made clear in the motion that that is a condition of approval. Shields agrees that a condition probably makes sense within a potential motion to approv e. La Mastra asked for clarification regarding where measurements would be taken from to make a motion and/or determine conditions. Which side of the fence are measurements taken? Beals clarified that the City will take measurements from the applicant’s side of the fence. La Mastra questioned how native grade might be determined if the pool deck surface has already been built up. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210048 based on the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the building on the abutting property to the east has five -foot setback and not the same fifteen-foot setback; the building to the south is non -conforming and encroaches into the five-foot setback; landscaping along the property may exceed such heights. Therefore, the variance request may be granted to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant, and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon their request. DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 Land Use Review Commission Page 13 December 9, 2021 The variance request is approved with the following two conditions: first, that the fence be dropped to a six-foot height from that portion that is north of neighboring property’s gate. Second, that the inspection, upon completion of the fence, is measured to native grade on the outside of the fence to ensure fence height does not exceed the proposed variance. Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Shields, Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy Nays: Lawton THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION • OTHER BUSINESS Noah Beals acknowledged the eight years of service put forward by Commission member Stockover and Chair Shields, who will both be leaving the Board due to term limits. The Board thanked them for their service and offered well wishes. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:20am Shelley La Mastra, Acting Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: 32481E57-DC12-4A9A-8997-60AB7122D182 1/24/2022