Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 06/09/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JUNE 9, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Commission member Meyer. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the May 12, 2022, Minutes. The motion was adopted; Commission member McCoy abstained from voting. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE Chair La Mastra noted that the Commission will not be able to hear one item today due to a conflict of interest from one of our Commission members which results in a loss of quorum for that item. Noah Beals clarified that the item being tabled is Item 3, ZBA220018 (504 Pearl St.). 1. APPEAL ZBA220016 Address: 1026 Linden Gate Ct. Owner: Andrew Pakiz Petitioner: Steve Josephs, Contractor Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.5.2(F)1 Project Description: This is a request for two street facing garages on a duplex to not be recessed behind the front façade of the house or covered porch. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 June 9, 2022 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Linden Gate Ct, and is a corner lot. Linden Gate Ct. is just of off N Lemay Ave. The subdivision consists of a total of twelve (12) residential lots. When the subdivision was approved, there was a requirement that a certain number of these residential lots be required to have at least two units. That can be in the form of a duplex or Accessory Dwelling Unit on the property or similar. Beals explained that this lot is the last lot to be build on in the subdivision, and it does have the two- unit requirement, hence why we are seeing a duplex being proposed on the site. Beals also noted that this is one of the larger-sized lots in the subdivision, and it also has two frontages along Linden Gate Ct. that they can take access from. Continuing, Beals presented the development plan that was originally approved for the subdivision, noting the presence of a City of Greeley water easement that runs through the subdivision and clips through the corner of this lot. There are some restrictions on what can happen in an easement, including a restriction of building of structures on the easement which is true in this case as well. Beals explained that this easement had further restrictions which limit the size of a cement pad to a maximum width of three (3) feet. Beals presented the proposed site plan, noting the plan shows that the duplex would face East and the garage doors of those duplexes would also face East. The code requirement that this design does not comply with is that garage doors that front along a street, either a side street or primary street, have to be recessed behind the wall of the of the dwelling or behind a porch (like a six (6)ft x by eight (8)ft porch) by at least four (4) feet. in this case the garages are not recessed behind either one of those elements and are actually further out than the porch or primary wall of the house. When presenting a rendering of the design, Beals noted that this is certainly a design for a duplex that does not comply with the standards. Beals noted there are other designs that would comply with the standards. Whether or not there are limiting factors present on the property is the core of the question before the Commission today. Regarding the City of Greeley easement, Beals described that if someone were to side-load a garage in that area, they could run two concrete ribbons for the driveway, as opposed to a full driveway pad, but the garage door would still need to be recessed four (4) feet. The site plan also depicts plenty of room to adjust the building in order to move the garage back a bit to achieve a recessed position. The grading plan was presented by the applicant as factor which prevents the garage door from being recessed behind the front wall; this wasn’t clear to staff but the applicant will have a chance to explain their reasoning in more detail. Beals concluded his presentation by showing some panoramic views taken from the property for orientation purposes. Beals also noted that there are some utility structures that are in the right of way along the east that may prevent where a driveway could be located but would not really influence how far back a garage door could be recessed. Beals concluded the staff presentation. Chair La Mastra asked what the required front yard setback is in this zone district. Beals responded that in the L-M-N zone district, the required front yard setback is fifteen (15) feet. Commission member McCoy asked if there were any other lots in this subdivision that are affected by the City of Greeley water line easement. Beals responded there are approximately four (4) lots that the easement runs through. McCoy asked if this was the last vacant lot in the subdivision; Beals confirmed that as accurate. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 June 9, 2022 Application Presentation: Applicant Andrew Pakiz addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Pakiz indicated that he is the landowner and applicant for this request and will also be acting as the builder for the home. Pakiz stated the request was fairly well expressed and documented in the submitted materials. To summarize the request, Pakiz explained he has a site with an unusual configuration and sloping topography, along with easement constraints. This creates a challenge when trying to fit the duplex and garages within the lot while attempting to meet City and neighborhood requirements. Pakiz noted he does have the support of neighbors to build this design, and that neighbors are very interest in having this final parcel built out. Pakiz thanked the Commission for their time and consideration and offered to answer any additional questions they may have. Commission member McCoy asked the applicant if, in answer to the city’s opinion, the garage could be moved to the rear a bit without covering any other setbacks. What was the thought there and was there any consideration of that, or was this just a design element? Applicant Pakiz stated the reason garages cannot be placed on the south is due to the slope of the lot on that side, and they are coming off of the cul-de-sac. There is a five-foot slope between the south end and the northeast corner of the lot, which would make it difficult to stick with grading. There are also problematic soils that are forcing the building to utilize caissons. There are also restrictions on the amount of concrete that can be placed over the easement. McCoy clarified that we wasn’t questioning a change in the orientation of the garage, but was instead asking if there is an ability to move the entire design back four (4) feet in the lot in order to accommodate the recession of the garage doors by that amount. Pakiz stated the challenges involved utilities easements that surround the property, which cannot be overhung by roof. The resulting restriction in the width of the garage deems the garage non-functional as intended. Chair La Mastra asked if it would be possible to move the center living portion of the home forward by four (4) feet, considering there is a fifteen (15) foot setback. It seems that there may be the badwidth to move the center living portion forward from the garages and still meet the required front-yard setback, without having to shift the placement of the garages. Pakiz responded that he did not believe that they had enough room to shift the rooms due to roof overhangs on the Greeley easement. Pakiz stated he had not looked at the possibility of shifting the central living space due to his understanding of a requirement of a twenty (20) foot setback; La Mastra clarified that staff have confirmed that the requirement is actually a fifteen (15) foot setback for front-yard. Pakiz responded that aesthetically, being that close to the street is not as pleasing and asked the Commission to consider approval of the request based on the reasons that were outlined in the application. Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Shuff stated his opinion that while the site does have some constraints of grade, it seems if the porch entry/living space was pushed forward to the face of the garage, it would comply. It is that simple. Having the garages behind the primary front wall is the code requirement, so this may be a case of a misunderstanding of code requirement on behalf of the applicant. Shuff commented he was not sure if there was a hardship there to allow for the garage to be the prominent facade; it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the easements. If the living space were pushed forward to create compliance, it would not be much different overall than the design as submitted and presented. Commission member McCoy asked for clarification regarding the which element needed to brought forward to bring the design into compliance, the porch or the living area. Chair La Mastra clarified that the “porch” was in fact a deck, and thus wouldn’t count. A porch typically has a roof structure over it architecturally. So, it would be the living space wall that would need to be brough forward four feet from the garage face. When looking at the site plan, there is nothing limiting that from being possible. IT is purely an aesthetic desire to go forward with this design. Shuff pointed out in the rendering, there does appear to be a covered roof over the deck. La Mastra asked Beals to confirm if that roof was projecting four feet from the garage face, would that meet the code requirement. Beals stated it would meet requirements if there were columns from the roof to the Land Use Review Commission Page 4 June 9, 2022 ground four (4) feet from the garage base. The other living space that could be extended four (4) feet is to the right of the garage, which is currently aligned with the garage, if the porch is not desired to come forward. A defined entry could also be brought forward to define entry and mask the garage. Shuff commented the intent of the code is not to have the garage be the prominent architectural feature of a residential façade. The discussion here is that the driveway length currently works for parking; has the hardship criteria been met for a variance? Shuff shared his opinion that hardship criteria has not been met, and there has not been a demonstration of why the design couldn’t be altered in a manner discussed in order to meet the code requirements. Commission member Lawton commented there appeared to be some simple modifications that could be made that would both meet code and maintain the overall design aesthetic as presented. The extension of a roof or similar would help to break up the street-facing façade. La Mastra commented she appreciated the style of garage door being utilized, noting that it helps very much in minimizing the impact of the doors. However, agreeing with Shuff, La Mastra stated her opinion that there has not been a demonstration of hardship justification to grant a variance. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to DENY ZBA220016 based on Section 2.10.4(H), finding that the variance request decreases the intent of the code and puts the garage doors as the prominent feature of the residential structure. Although the shape of the lot is different from the others in the subdivision it is also the 4th largest in size and the largest lot width along the street frontage. The larger size does provide room for structures to comply with the standards. 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 standard. Additionally, from Board discussion it seems that working the entry and roof elements to project them four (4) feet closer to the street would allow the design intent to remain while complying with the land use code. This would not affect the placement of the house structure on the lot. Yeas: McCoy, La Mastra, Lawton, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Meyer THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 2. APPEAL ZBA220017 Address: 281 Willow St. Owner: 232 Willow Residences Petitioner: Kelly Larson, Regional Manager Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.3(E)(Table E) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the total sign area for a banner by 90 square feet. The maximum sign area allowed for a banner is 40 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Willow St., just east of N College Ave. and is currently under construction. The property is a multi-unit residential development, consisting of two separate buildings. The request is to install a banner, 32.5 feet wide x 4 feet tall, which is 90 square feet in excess of our standard of 40 square feet for a banner. Now, during our emergency orders, there is an allowance for banners to be placed longer than the normal 40 days – that is not part of this request. Beals showed a rendering of the elevation which would face south, which is the side where the banner is intended to be placed in order to gain visibility from Jefferson St. Beals noted this structure is significantly taller than most of the buildings along Jefferson St. and will be visible with or without the Land Use Review Commission Page 5 June 9, 2022 banner installed. Beals showed pictures of the building as currently situated, noting the building is five stories in total height. Commission member Lawton asked if we know where exactly the banner would be placed. Beals responded that we do not know where the banner would be placed, the applicant could provide clarification during their presentation. Beals clarified that the location of the banner is not at issue, but instead the overall size of the proposed banner exceeds the standard. Lawton asked if there is a limit to the number of banners allowed; Beals explained that there is not a limit to the number of banners that may be hung, but the total combined square footage of multiple banners may not exceed the 40 square foot maximum. Chair La Mastra asked to review the aerial view, surmising that the banner would likely be placed on one of the South-facing walls. Commission member McCoy asked if because there are two buildings, could there be two banners of 40 square feet? Beals responded no, the 40 square foot maximum relates to the total banner usage on the site. Vice-Chair Shuff asked if the banner size is based on frontage. Beals explained that banner size is not based on frontage, because that square footage does not take away from your overall allowed signage for the property due to the temporary nature of banners, as opposed to permanent signage. Application Presentation: Applicant Kelly Larsen, Regional Manager, addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Larsen explained the banner would be placed on the right-hand (southeast) building, towards the top of the fourth floor. That rooftop deck will have a metal railing, which the banner could be hung from without creating significant view obstructions to residents’ windows. The intent is to capture exposure from Jefferson St, as it functions more as a main road. The banner is one attempt to better-define what the buildings are (i.e., residential) to drive-by traffic. Commission member Lawton asked the applicant to clarify who the intended audience is for the banner. Larsen commented that currently, there are no signs at all on the backside of the buildings, facing Willow Street. Someone driving down Jefferson may not necessarily understand the development to be an apartment community. Therefore, the applicant would like to temporarily add additional banner signage while the community is getting to know what these buildings are, so that it can hopefully help solicit interest and visitation. Chair La Mastra asked the applicant to explain the justification included in the application of nominal and inconsequential. However, the reasoning included in the letter provided referenced the forty days limit being currently suspended. La Mastra stated that she was having trouble matching those two elements up when considering the request. Larsen responded this admittedly was her first zoning request/meeting, so had attempted to get some help from the zoning department as to what needed to be included in the letter. If restricted to the 40 square feet maximum, the proposed banner would not be effective in capturing the attention and interest of traffic driving by. La Mastra explained that the justifications are why something should be given a variance based on the defined justifications. Nominal and inconsequential would signify that the variance would not have an impact on the surrounding area. 225% of what is allowed is probably not considered nominal. It doesn’t seem that reasons have been provided that this wouldn’t impact the neighborhood except in a nominal and inconsequential way. WE have letters from adjacent neighbors that face this side of the building who feel a sign that large would certainly impact them. Larsen responded that they can try to see if the banner could be made smaller; however, a sign that was 40 square feet may simply not be worth hanging if it is not going to be visible enough to gain the Land Use Review Commission Page 6 June 9, 2022 attention of traffic driving by on Jefferson. The banner proposed is tasteful in design and attempted to utilize mellow colors that aren’t jarring or obtrusive. The applicant wants to enhance the community and forge new relationships with surrounding employers and business in the Old Town area. Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Shuff referred to the photograph of the face of the buildings, estimated its width to be approximately 65 feet, which is typical of a double-loaded apartment structure. It would have been nice to see some rendering or other illustration to help understand the scale and placement of the banner. The sign would be about half the total width of the building. The banner does exceed the standard by quite a bit, but in relation to the scale of the building overall the banner would perhaps not appear as massive. There has been some concern raised by adjacent neighbors. Shuff would be open to some amount of increase being approved, but the 225% currently proposed is to much. Additionally, as proposed the “281 Willow” element included in the design would not be readable from the road. Beals indicated there is an opportunity to place permanent signage on this side of the building, even if it is “permanent” signage that is removed or altered at a later date. Commission member McCoy agreed with the comments of Shuff and Beals, adding the labeling of the building on that banner “Now Leasing” may not be necessary. If that text were removed from the design, the banner may be closer in size to standard. Commission member Lawton commented that folks driving down Jefferson would not be able to write down or legibly read the “281 Willow” element. If that element were removed and the banner re-sized, it may be closer to standard. Lawton added that he did understand to a point the hardship presented when trying to project sign visibility across a further distance; however, that is a self-imposed hardship because the banner could be placed on the opposite side of the building. La Mastra commented that as previously mentioned by Beals, this is one fo the tallest buildings in this area of town, so it is not hard to see. We see buildings going up all the time and we don’t necessarily approve variances so that they can be seen streets over from where they are located. Drawing interest from a non-facing street is good, but there are ways this could be reduced in size. A visual aid would be helpful to see how readability is affected by size and distance. However, currently we have no means to gauge those considerations. Based on the information provided, La Mastra agrees with staff’s recommendation of denial. Commission Member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to DENY ZBA220017 based on Section 2.10.4(H), finding that the variance is 225% of the allowable size for a temporary sign; insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property; and 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 standard. Yeas: McCoy, La Mastra, Lawton, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Meyer THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 3. APPEAL ZBA220018 – APPEAL TABLED DUE TO RECUSAL AND LACK OF QUORUM Address: 504 Pearl St. Owner: Ben & Lindsey Mater Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot by 352 square feet. The maximum allowed is 731 square feet Land Use Review Commission Page 7 June 9, 2022 Vice-Chair Shuff stated his conflict of interest with this item, noting the architect of the applicant is Shuff’s spouse. A conflict-of-interest form has been submitted the Clerk’s office. Beals explained that with the conflict of interest, our Commission will be drawn to below quorum, and we will not be able to hear the appeal request at this time. An alternative time will be arranged. Assistant Attorney Claire Havelda provided an update to the Commission, stating that the Clerk’s Office has indicated that the Land Use Review Commission has five current applicants, and recruitment closes tomorrow. She is currently working with the City Manager's office to get interviews scheduled and she plans to have resolutions set before Council to confirm those individuals, whoever is selected, on July 5 and July 19. Beals and Shuff also discussed the possibility of appointment of an “alternate” to the Commission in order to protect against loss of quorum due to absence, etc. Shuff asked if we could potentially hold an alternate remote meeting to hear some or all of the appeals that have been tabled due to loss of quorum. La Mastra indicated she would be open to holding an off- cycle remote meeting to hear appeals. Beals indicated staff would move forward with coordination of a special remote meeting. 4. APPEAL ZBA220020 Address: 1843 Michael Ln. Owner/ Petitioner: Mike and Kristy Millsaps Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a home addition to encroach 5 feet into the required 20-foot side setback and the eave to encroach into the setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Michael Ln, which ends into a cul-de-sac. There was a street originally that ran through the subdivision (Cooper Pl), which has subsequently been vacated. That vacated public right away was incorporated into the subject parcel. The site plan provided by the applicant shows a bit larger due to their owning of the adjacent lot. Therefore, the site plan provided incorporates both lots into the single plan. The site plan describes the existing house and driveway, as well as the proposed addition that would be encroaching into the side setback. Beals explained in the U-E zoning district, there is a 20-foot side setback. The proposed setback would be approximately 17 feet from the structure. The existing condition here is a drive, consisting of a 7- foot dirt path; the addition is seeking to build to the edge of that drive. The proposed addition would consist of a two-car garage structure with an adjacent concrete pad to provide entry to the garage doors. Beals presented pictures of the property depicting the location of the proposed garage as well as the existing dirt drive adjacent to the proposed building site. Chair La Mastra asked for clarification regarding the site plan presented and questioned if that is the existing site plan. It shows a line labeled “building setback line – 20ft” in the front, and 15 feet in the side. It doesn’t appear that any of the building is encroaching those setbacks, so we need clarification as to what is actually being requested. Beals responded that he believed the site plan does show the proposed structures rather than existing. The existing structure currently does not encroach into the setback, but the addition would encroach.