Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 10/14/2021 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 OCTOBER 14, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members were present. Stockover was present but joined after the roll call. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to approve the September 9, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210039 - APPROVED Address: 617 Cherry St Owner/Petitioner: Vincent and Kimberly Chimelis Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request to enclose an exterior stair (cellar access) with a roofed structure that would encroach .92 feet (11 inches) in the required 5-foot alley side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is mid-block between Loomis Ave. and Whitcomb St. The lot was originally platted with one alley down the middle. Subsequent development included the construction of an additional alley. The property is located between the two alleyways. The request is to cover and fully enclose an exterior cellar stairway on the east side of the existing home. The home was constructed in 1920, prior to most of our current building codes. The staircase does currently encroach slightly into the existing setback. The east side of the property abuts an alley and does not directly abut any residences. There is a similar LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 2 October 14, 2021 existing cantilever bay window on the east side of the building, which code allows to encroach approximately two feet into the setback. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Troy Chimelis, 6244 Murano Dr., Windsor CO, addressed the board and agreed to h old the hearing held remotely. Chimelis stated that he has recently purchased th e property and is making upgrades to the home prior to taking occupancy. Chimelis notes that he had previously been measuring from the fence line, however a survey recently performed shows that the fence is located a bit further east from the actual property line, continues at an angle from back to front of lot. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover thinks this is a straightforward and reasonable request, noting that the alley gives them more of a buffer, and that the residence is pre-existing older home. Vice Chair La Mastra concurs, noting that this request within the definition of being nominal and inconsequential. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA210039 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neigh borhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the staircase location to be enclosed is existing, and the encroachment occurs along an alley as well as behind an existing fence. Additionally, similar-sized architectural features are permitted to encroach, which this building has. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210040 - APPROVED Address: 1401 W Lake St. Owner/Petitioner: Whitney Cranshaw Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building (greenhouse) encroaching a total of 5 feet in the required 15-foot setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, as well as abutting some property that is owned by a church entity. This request is to build a greenhouse structure within the required rear setback. The required rear setback is 15 feet; the applicants are requesting to build 10 feet into the setback . The structure would continue to meet the side setback along the north. The proposes structure is a dome; overall height at the peak would be 10 feet. Commission member Stockover asked if there is a height limitation for structures such as this. Beals stated that in general, the height limitation is the same as for a primary building. Commissio n member Stockover asked if this is considered an accessory building? Beals confirms that it is an accessory building and mentioned that if a building is less than 8 feet and less than 124 sq ft, you are not required to get a building permit. However, because this structure is over the height limit it is required to have a permit. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 3 October 14, 2021 Applicant Presentation: Applicant Sue Ballou, 1400 W Lake St., addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Ballou stated that she is the owner of the property located at 1401 W Lake St., where the application is being made. The property is a vacation rental and is registered as such with the City. Ballou stated that the proposed location works better due to the amount of sun received and the proximity to an existing 6-foot fence. There is a fair amount of tree growth providing screening between the proposed greenhouse location and the adjacent property owned the church entity. Vice Chair La Mastra questions the proposed location of the greenhouse, noting that in pictures the location appears to be completely shaded. The applicant responded that most of the shade visible in the photos is from a Crabapple tree that is slated to be removed, which will result in a sunny site. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer stated his opinion that this request falls into the category of nominal and inconsequential. The dome shape lends itself to only a small portion of the dome being over 10 feet tall. The current proposed location will be least visible to neighbors and makes sense. Commission member Stockover stated his opinion that the proposed location is good, and there is good surrounding vegetation to provide visual cover. However, this will be a massive permanent structure; this is larger than the typical “backyard greenhouse”, which gives a moment of pause. Stockover stated that if this were in another location, he may not be able to support the request. Commission member Shuff agreed with the sentiments of Stockover, agreeing that while the structure is indeed large, the proposed location will help to hide it from sight amongst adjacent neighbors. Vice Chair La Mastra stated the property directly behind the applicant is currently owned by the church but is a separate parcel. Most of these properties will eventually be re -developed, and the context of that future development needs to be considered. Commission member Lawton stated that if not for the setback issue, this structure wouldn’t even be in front of the board for review. The size is not a big problem, and the structure appears to be in good character. La Mastra concurs with Lawton, and notes that the abutment of the rear yard is made to the side yard of the church lot. Encroachment may be contextually appropriate in this case. Chair Shields stated that the size doesn’t concern him as much if it is meeting size requirements for this type of structure. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA210040 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will 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 with the following findings: the abutting neighbor is required a five foot side yard setback from the shared property line; the accessory structure will be used for gardening purposes. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 4 October 14, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA210041 - APPROVED Address: 501 Edwards St. Owner: On Track Homes LLC Petitioner: Adam Jaspers Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 8 feet 4 inches, and an additional 3 feet for the eave, into the required 16-foot west side-yard setback for a building with a wall height of 19 feet 1.25 inches. A variance request (ZBA210033) to encroach 5.8 feet into the side-yard setback for a wall height of 18 feet has previously been approved. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property was also reviewed by the board in August. The previous variance approved an encroachment in the same area. When the permit was again up for review, it was found that the wall height is higher than 18 feet. This requires an additional setback; because it is 2 feet (or a portion of 2 ft) above 18 feet, it requires an additional foot of setback (for a total of 16 feet of setback). The existing home does currently encroach on both east and west setbacks. As currently proposed, the structure would meet the 6-foot setback requirement on the east side and would encroach on the west side setback. Beals noted that property line does not align with back of sidewalk, minimizing the p erception of encroachment on setback. Interior plans have not changed since the last review. Exterior plans have not changed either. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Adam Jaspers, 36763 Bryan Ave., Windsor, CO, addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Jaspers added that it was a surprising to note that within this zoning district wall height is not measured from the top of the foundation but is instead measured from grade from the interior lot line. The building has been shifted over due to difficulties meeting wall height at the lot line with the required grade, because it drops off another foot or so. The main floor has been recessed to maintain level with top of concrete on foundation. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff states if this property were not located on a corner and having a large side yard setback, he may not be able to support the variance. This is a clear design restraint, and eave height is clearly stated in the Land Use Code. Everyone must abide by the same code and there are ways to do. Vice Chair La Mastra agreed with Shuff and stated additional separate between back of sidewalk and property line helps in this context to mitigate encroachment into the setback. If located somewhere else this request may not be supported but given the context of location it may be easier to support. Commission member Meyer stated that he was not in attendance during the August hearing and is seeing this proposed plan for the first time. Meyer’s first reaction is the site is very challenging—the site is 40 feet wide with a 15-foot setback on one side and a 5-foot setback on the other side, leaving a buildable footprint only 20 feet wide. When comparing what is being proposed now to what was proposed in August, this appears to be a nominal change. Wish we could replat the property! Commission member Lawton stated his continued support for the request from August, noting that a change in 1 foot of setback encroachment doesn’t change his current thinking. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 5 October 14, 2021 Vice Chair La Mastra commented she finds it interesting that an 8-foot encroachment into a 15-foot setback would be deemed as nominal. Given the lot conditions and setback restraints as outlined by Meyer, this might be a hardship justification for the variance. Chair Shields questions whether this becomes nominal given the context of relationship between lot line and back of sidewalk? La Mastra responds she could see that perspective; when considering percentages, 8 feet out of the require 15 feet setback represents more than 50% of total area. How could one effectively build a home on a 20-foot sliver? Commission member Stockover noted that the board didn’t always have the nominal and inconsequential justifications; without those guidelines, this request would certainly meet the justification for hardship. The narrowness of the lot fits the description of “exceptional physical conditions” unique to the property. Beals noted that if wall heights were at 18 feet, the setback would be 15 feet. Because the wall he ight is now over 18 feet, the required setback is expanded to 16 feet and 6 feet, reducing the footprint of the property even more. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by La Mastra to APPROVE ZBA210041 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and for the hardship reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, wh ich is subject to the request as follows. The narrowness of the lot creates a hardship condition, and mitigating factors are that it has a large buffer between the sidewalk and property line. Additionally, the increased wall height of 19+ feet provides a second reason to approve on the grounds of nominal and inconsequential. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA210042 – APPROVED with Condition Address: 2533 Courtland Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Clay Bell Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a carport to encroach 4 feet 11 inches into the required 5-foot side setback. The posts will be 1 foot from the property line and combination of eave and gutter is 11 inches and will not cross property line. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located on a cul-de-sac, which butts up against Drake Rd. There is a small pedestrian access from Drake Rd. to the end of the cul-de-sac. This property wants to build a carport on the north side of the house. The primary structure is almost double the size of the required setback; however, there is still a required 5-foot setback along the side of the property. Prior to the applicant owning the property, there was a carport in-place. Subsequent investigation determined that no previous permit was pulled for the carport that was present, meaning it was technically an illegal structure. During the large snowstorm of last year, the existing carport collapsed under the weight of the snow. The collapsed carport has been removed, and the applicant is now seeking to rebuild what had been an illegal structure. In submitting the building permit this time, they found it was in the setback, and a hold has been placed on the permit. They are now seeking a variance for setback encroachment. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 6 October 14, 2021 Beals explained that the current request is to build out a carport extending almost all the way up to the property line, with a 1-foot setback from the post to the property line, and 1 inch from the face of the gutter to the property line. The proposed roof has an increased roof to assist with snow/water runoff. Beals showed aerial images of the property, noting that this lot and others at the end of the cul-de-sac are a bit wider compared to the interior lots. Commission member McCoy asked Beals if, in the context of a fence running along the property line, if a fence can be 6 feet tall. Beals confirmed. McCoy asked to clarify that because there would be a roof extending from the house, this is what has triggered the variance request. Beals answered that because the roof of the proposed carport is attached to the primary residence, the carport then requires a building permit and must meet fire code as it approaches the house. Chair Shields asked Beals if there was another structure to the south of the existing home. Beals responded that it appears that there is a small shed and another shade structure on the property. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Clay Bell and Kevay Bell, 2533 Courtland Ct., addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Clay bell provided a bit of context, stating they purchased the home about a year ago and during the snowstorm last year, the carport collapsed. The old carport was supporte d primarily by 4” x 4” wooden posts and beams and was attached to the face of the home via simple metal brackets. The previous carport roof did extend to the fence, and had a gutter installed to minimize water and ice flowing to the neighbor’s property. Bell stated that he is looking to essentially rebuild the previous structure but do it in a way that prevents future collapse or damage. From the front of the house there is a full-swing gate providing access to the carport location; the proposed roof would extend just a bit higher than the fence line. Commission member La Mastra asked the applicant if they have spoken to their adjacent neighbor, and whether the neighbor is ok with the proposed carport. Bell indicated that he had spoken with the neighbor; the neighbors observed the collapse of the carport while shoveling snow. The neighbor is ok with the proposed carport, and in fact helped the previous homeowner with the building of the original carport more than ten years ago. Unfortunately, the structure collapsed right after purchase. Commission member Lawton asked what the reason is for constructing a carport, when it appears from pictures that there is a garage present on the property. Beals responded that the previous owner used the carport to store a “hot rod”, and when Beals purchased the home, the carport was an attractive feature to store bikes, kayaks, and other small items. The proposed carport is not intended for vehicular storage. Lawton continued to ask why a carport is desired when a garage is present; Ball responded the garage is currently being used to store vehicles, and the proposed carport would provide additional covered space for outdoor and recreation equipment. And, Bell stated, really, they are looking to replace a structure that was present when the home was purchased a year ago, as it was an attractive feature at the time of purchase. Chair Shields asked the applicants if they had considered building a cover that met the setback requirements? Would that type of structure meet their needs? Clay Bell responded it the variance is not granted, in all likelihood they will not rebuild the structure and will just “deal” with it. A cover that meets the setback would be quite a bit narrower and may prevent parking a trailer or other full -width item within the covered space. Audience Participation: (none) DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 7 October 14, 2021 Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover asked Noah Beals if prefabricated metal “car shades” are considered temporary structures? Would that type of structure be allowed in this space? Beals responded “no”, most of the prefab structures seen around town are in fact illegal due to their size and should have had a permit pulled prior to their installation. Because they require a permit, they also need to meet the required setback. Stockover asks if a temporary structure must meet all codes, including setback. Beals responded in the affirmative, noting a structure is considered an “accessory building” and requires a building permit when it is 120 sq ft or more and/or reaches a height of more than 8 feet. Stockover asks what the proposed height of the structure is, noting the proposed structure is 10 feet wide by 25 feet long. Stockover states that part of him wants to approve, noting the structure would be behind a fence, up against a neighbor’s wall, and a structure existed on the site previously. On the flip side, there is a shed on the back on the other side already. The lot was probably pus hed back away from Drake as far as possible to create a buffer. That said, the proposed structure is quite a bit bigger than what is allowed as well as being taller. Chair Shields commented it is always tough when a structure is proposed to be built righ t up against a property line, and many challenges may arise from that close of a proximity. Commission member Shuff agreed with Shields, commenting there are multiple options allowed within code to provide cover that may not require a variance. Vice Chair La Mastra compared this request to previous instances of carports being granted variances, commenting almost all carports previously approved had some degree of encroachment into the setback. In the last few months, we have looked at carports that come within inches of adjacent property lines. La Mastra notes these petitioners have come here in good faith prior to beginning construction, which can’t be said of all applicants. Also, their proposed plan contains elements such as gutter to reduce impact on neighboring properties. Given these factors, La Mastra is less inclined to decline this request. Commission member Stockover suggested that the carport being proposed could perhaps be reduced in size to 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep, to reduce the footprint. The depth may not be the biggest issue; however, as drawn the rear of the carport extends beyond the back of the neighbor’s house. Considering that anything approved is approved forever, we need to consider future impacts. A smaller structure may be more desirable and could still provide all the cover needs expressed by the applicants. There may also be a concern about safety/fire access. A 6 x 15 -foot structure may be easier to approve. Commission member La Mastra concurred with Stockover, stating her support for a possible motion that would include conditions requiring a smaller-sized structure be built. Commission member McCoy asked that if the structure was ten feet wide (to the property line) and twelve feet deep, would a permit still be required? Noah Beals clarified that any structure that is attached to the primary residence requires a permit. Additionally, any structure over 8 feet tall requires a permit. McCoy asks if a structure 7.5 feet tall, 10 feet wide and 12 feet deep would require a permit. Beals responds that it would not. Stockover responds that solution may be a “manipulation” of code. La Mastra commented that she does not view it so much as a manipulation of code, but instead is a necessary cut off parameter. Shields asked the Board what they felt regarding Stockover’s proposed condition for approval. The condition in question would reduce the proposed size of the structure to 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Commission member Meyer stated his agreement with the direction of the proposed conditions. Meyer stated that if he were the applicant, he would have attempted to avoid having to request a variance in DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 8 October 14, 2021 the first place. For example, posts could be placed at the five-foot setback, with the roof overhanging two feet for seven feet of cover. You could build as far back without a variance and would only require a permit. Meyer lamented the fact that the highlighted Zillow listing provided by the applicant calls out the inclusion of a carport, when in fact the property does not allow for the build out of a car -sized structure. Commission member Lawton commented what we have before us would not be supported, but there are some modifications that can be made to get to approval. If the structure were originally designed to meet code, we wouldn’t even need to talk about it. If there is a mid-term, medium solution, that is something we’d like to entertain. However, Lawton would like to hear from the applicants directly before making any proposed changes/conditions prior to approval. Applicant Clay Bell stated he has been listening in to the Board discussion and it makes sense. The reason why a variance request was sought was driven by the convenience and flexibility of having a structure that is sizable enough to fit a vehicle or trailer when needed, now and into the future. Additionally, the intent was to leave enough space on either side to be able to exit a vehicle once parked within the carport. The proposed new structure would utilize elements like ledger board to increase lateral strength and prevent future collapse. If post locations are moved back to eight feet wide, that could be a good compromise. The 25-foot length was an attempt to fully cover the side space next to the home, but a shorter length could be amenable as well. Commission member Stockover suggested that an 8-foot width may not be convenient for a daily driver but could be used to back in a vehicle that is not driven as frequently. The reduced length being proposed would also draw the rear of the carport roof closer in line with the edge of the neighboring home. Commission member McCoy asked if he could hear comments from Commission member Shuff. Commission member Shuff shared his opinion that Stockover’s proposed changes are ok and represent a good approach that maintain a useable covered area. Shuff noted that this circumstance is better than some in that the neighboring home doesn’t have any windows on the side wall that would be impacted. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210042 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code 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 with the following findings : the first finding that although the previous carport was not permitted and was an illegal structure, it was in place for ten-plus years without any concern from the adjacent neighbor. Second, the variance request is approved with the condition that the proposed structure be reduced in size, to 8 feet wide from the edge of house by 20 feet deep, with a pitched roof as shown in the drawings. The final finding for approval is the fact that the carport will be open on three sides, is behind a gated fence, is located on an existing slab, and we are improving the condition from previous non- conforming condition by increase space to side yard setback by 2 feet, bringing it more in compliance with safety access issues to the backyard. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. Noah Beals reminded applicant Clay Bell that they will need to update their building permit to be in compliance with the above requirements. Bell asked to clarify that the 8 -foot width was measured from the face of the house to the outer face of the post. Beals confirmed that to be accurate. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B Land Use Review Commission Page 9 October 14, 2021 • OTHER BUSINESS Noah Beals reminded the Board that next month’s meeting will be held on a Friday (November 12), rather than Thursday, due to Veterans Day occurring on Thursday, November 11. We will continue to meet remotely. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:10am Ralph Shields, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AE79D91-90FA-42C0-9DBC-0C4C1DD2FB2B 12/22/2021