Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 02/10/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting will be held virtually 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 FEBRUARY 10, 2022 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 McCoy to approve the January 13, 2022, Minutes. The motion was adopted, with Lawton abstaining. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE (@ 8:37am, Vice Chair Shuff stated for the record that he had a conflict of interest regarding ZBA22004, noting that his wife was the architect working with the applicant on the project.) 1. APPEAL ZBA220002 Address: 124 N Grant St Owner: Ting Ting Yao/Robert Cohen Petitioner: Collins Ferris, Designer/Consultant Zoning District: N-C-L Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building with habitable space to encroach 2 feet into the 5-foot side setback. Existing accessory building is currently encroaching 2 feet into the side setback and is legal nonconforming. The new accessory building will replace the existing accessory building. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is mid-block along N Grant Ave, and is accessed via a back alley. There is an existing accessory LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 December 12, 2021 structure on the property which will be demolished to make way for the new proposed structure. Referencing the site plan, Beals noted the outline of the existing structure as well as that of the proposed structure. The existing structure on-site does not meet the side setback and is about three feet away. The required setback is five feet. The proposal is to build a new s tructure which is larger in size and in length of wall along the north property line; the current setback of three feet would be maintained rather than the required five-foot set back. Beals continued by presenting side elevations, which describe the north and east (alley side) elevations. Beals commented the proposed structure will not exceed allowable floor area and is meeting eave heights and building heights. However, the structure is not meeting the side setback. Beals presented photos of the front of the house, which does indicate a driveway access from the street as well as the alley access previously described. Beals presented a view from the back of the property, noting the existing shed which will be demolished along with an existing greenhouse structure. Chair La Mastra asked Beals is there were to be gutters along the back of the roof line, which appears to slop towards the fence line. Beals responded that the roof does slope towards the fence line, and there does not appear to be to be gutters based on the images provided. Application Presentation: Collins Ferris, representative for the applicants, responded there was an additional exhibition which, in his opinion, represented the crux of the of the northside setback and heights that would impede. The diagram lines out the heights based on the 14-foot max based on a five-foot setback. The applicant attempted to be mindful of potential impacts to solar with the placement of the structure and want to replace the existing structure with as little impact as possible to that portion of the code. Ferris noted that the eave height difference will be 11 feet, 9 inches at the three-foot setback, which follows the solar setback angle at the 14-foot/five-foot height and setback limits. Ferris noted any further south the building is placed would impede viewsheds as well as ambulatory circulation around the struc ture and existing home’s exit pathway to the backyard. Chair La Mastra examined the exhibit referenced by Ferris and confirmed her understanding that the drawing depicted an attempt to have the eave height drop in proximity to the fence and property line. Ferries concurred. La Mastra asked Ferris if gutters were included; he responded that gutters are planned to be installed to prevent water from shedding on to the improved grade. Commission member Lawton commented that it had previously been mentioned that the existing structure is non-conforming. Lawton asked Beals is the existing structure had been approved previously. Beals responded that he had not found any previous approvals of the three-foot setback. Commission member Meyer referenced Ferris’ previous statement that if the structure were moved further south it would impede the applicants’ egress and circulation paths from the south entrance of their existing home. Meyer noted that roof of the proposed structure is lower as it approaches the residence, with a fairly significant overhang on the north wall. If the length of the overhang were reduced, would it be possible to improve circulation from the residence by moving the proposed structure south? Ferris asked for clarification. Meyer questioned if the overhang creates an impediment to circulation. Ferris answered the overhang does not result in an impediment. If the proposed structure were moved two feet, it would result in one having to make a quick j og to the right to access the yard upon existing the rear door. Commission member Lawton commented that he noticed from the photos the existing structure appeared to have a garage door. Was the existing structure previously used as a garage? Ferris responded the existing shed does not have a garage door. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 December 12, 2021 La Mastra requested that Beals present the aerial view of the property to determine the relationship with adjacent properties. La Mastra remarked that the house located on the adjacent property was located on the opposite side of the lot. Ferris confirmed, referencing the view of the fence line. Audience Participation: Steven Hix, 128 N Grant Ave, Fort Collins, CO addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Hix, neighbor to 124 N Grant, stated for the record his support of the project as proposed. Hix also commented that he had experienced trouble when attempting to join the meeting via zoom. Hix commented that the picture of the garage included in the applicant materials is his garage, for refence and clarification. Attorney Claire Havelda asked Hix if the applicant was present on the call with him, as an individual was present in the background. Hix confirmed that we was at the residence of the applicants, located at 124 N Grant. Havelda asked the owners to introduce themselves in order to create a complete record. Applicants Robert Cohen and Ting Ting Yao, 124 N Grant Ave., Fort Collins, CO addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Commission Discussion: Vice Chair Shuff commented he felt torn regarding this request. While understanding the intent to replace the existing shed, Shuff noted the proposed structure is about twice the size of the existing structure. If hardship is the rational for the request, Shuff agrees with the Staff report which does not determine the application demonstrates a hardship. Commissioner Meyer did attempt to address this with the applicant by addressing the possibility of moving the structure south two feet. Shuff stated he was uncertain if the effect on circulation constitutes a hardship, and from his perspective these requests can become difficult to determine how and when it’s appropriate to maintain an existing setback based on the size increase of the proposed new structure. Shuff commented that because this would be a whole new structure, he is having difficulty in understanding why it cannot be placed at the required five-foot setback. Chair La Mastra stated that within the variance application, the applicant is actu ally asking for a nominal and inconsequential justification. La Mastra explained that because of the reduced setback, the height of the roof has been lowered proportionately based on the 14-foot heigh maximum/5-foot setback. Shuff stated that he appreciated the attempt to minimize, but also realized that it is a simple 2:1 ration set forth by the code. Nominal and inconsequential does seem to be a more appropriate justification, and the neighbor has stated their approval. However, the long-term effects and permanence need to be considered if and when the property changes owners. Shuff stated his continued hesitancy to approve the request based on current findings. Commission member Lawton stated his opinion that from a design perspective, the applicants s eem to have done a good job. Lawton also commented that he is struggling a bit with the three -foot setback, which seems to be a self-imposed hardship. When looking at the plans, Lawton does not determine that a two-foot move to the south would create two much of a change in back yard access. Lawton commented the existing shed is non-conforming and doesn’t have a variance, and sometimes the role of the Commission is to clean things up. However, the neighbor is okay with it and drainage issues have been addresses, so structurally the proposal is ok. Justification based on nominal and inconsequential rather than hardship is more appropriate. La Mastra stated that having a plan that showed the access conflicts would have been helpful, because it is hard to determine from the materials provided. Collins Ferris responded that on the site plan, you can see where the sliding glass door on the rear of the existing home (north side) is located. If the proposed structure were moved two feet closer to the DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 December 12, 2021 home, it would begin to impede the door. La Mastra stated that based on her observations, it would seem that if moved, the proposed structure would actually line up with the edge of the sliding door. Ferris responded that the shift would put the structures so close as to begin to feel unnatural and awkward. Commission Member Meyer thanked Ferris for his input and clarification. Meyer acknowledged that shifting the proposed structure may not create a physical barrier to circulation but would create a defined visual disturbance. Meyer can picture standing at th e back of the house looking out and feeling the wall beginning to encroach. However, this does not justify a hardship but rather nominal and inconsequential. While the existing structure was there, the proposed structure would add wall length encroaching into the setback. Meyer stated he would be more inclined to approve if we were merely repeating the existing footprint—therefore, it may not meet the justification of being nominal. It’s good to know that neighbors are in support, but future neighbors may n ot feel the same way. Meyer commented that he struggles to understand why the proposed structure can not be built to the required five-foot setback; the back yard is fairly large and the structure is not placed right outside the back door. La Mastra asked if the structure were mirrored, you would be opening into the back yard, resulting in the bedroom being placed closer to the main house. This may reduce the impact to the rear exit. There may still be avenues for solving this. The entire length of the property is 190 feet, the proposed wall length is 35 feet, representing 18% of total side property line. We need to bear that in mind. La Mastra commented it is important to acknowledge the adjacent neighbor’s house is not directly next to this. This would be more impactful if there were windows and other elements directly adjacent rather than yard space. As far as neighbor turn over, when you buy a property, you are buying it “as-is”, if you don’t like it you don’t by the property. It’s important to note the existing neighbor is in support of the request. There may still be some avenues for changing the proposal. La Mastra commented that there seems to be some disconnect between staff’s recommendation being hardship and the application requesting nominal and inconsequential. La Mastra asked Beals if he could provide clarification regarding the discrepancy. Beals explained that staff’s report speaks to all three criteria. Staff did not feel it met nominal and inconsequential due to the intensity in change of use. The current shed is being used as a basic storage building, while the proposed structure has habitable space with a workshop. Thus, there is a change in use as well as an almost doubling of wall length. Additionally, staff did not find evidence of hardship, or evidence of equal to or better than. Shuff responded, based on Beals comments, that presently he is not able to support the request as currently proposed. Shuff would support the footprint of the existing structure to maintain the three-foot setback, but any new space would need to comply with the five-foot setback requirement. Lawton agreed with La Mastra’s suggestion that mirroring the building design and shifting the placement to meet the setback would alleviate many of the issues concerning circulation. There are a lot of options to do this to conform, which may or may not have been explored. This is also a chance to correct what is there now which is non-conforming. La Mastra offered applicants representative Collins Ferris to provide on e additional statement to the Commission. Ferris stated his appreciation for the Commissions discussion. Ferris confirmed the current use of the existing shed is as a workshop. To flip the building design would make it difficult to access the workshop via driveway and its intended use. Ferris also referenced the sensitivity they have given to the solar setback by minimizing the roof height based on three-foot setback. La Mastra acknowledged the lively discussion on behalf of the Commission and commented that given the increase in size and potential for redesign to meet setback, La Mastra agrees with staff’s findings regarding increased use and increase in scale. La Mastra encouraged the Commission to put forth a motion. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 December 12, 2021 Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to deny ZBA220002 for the following reasons: the proposed structure has significant increase in use in comparison to the existing structure; the primary structure meets the required setbacks; insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to this property; insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing how the proposal shall support the standards in a way equally or better-than a proposal that complies with the standards. Yeas: Shuff, Lawton, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA220004 Address: 610 Whedbee St. Owner: John & Valerie Melia Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(6); 4.8(E)(6)(b) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building without habitable space to exceed the maximum 600 sq ft of floor area by 92 sq ft (692 sq ft) and for the dormer to exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the wall length. Twenty-five percent of the 25-foot wall length is 6.25 feet and the proposed dormer is 12 feet wide. (@9:18am, Vice Chair Shuff recused himself from the discussion based on a conflict of interest.) (@9:18am, Chair La Mastra stated for the record that she knows Heidi Shuff and works with her husband; La Mastra does not feel that she has a conflict of interest in hearing this item and has no financial gain with the decision of this item. Attorney Claire Havelda asked La Mastra to confirm that the personal relationship did not cause her to prejudge this action and will not impact or bias her decision. La Mastra responded in the affirmative.) Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is mid-block along Whedbee St, just south of Myrtle St. The request is to build a new garage in the back yard that exceeds allowable square footage by 92 sq ft. The allowable square footage is 600 sq ft; the proposed is 692 sq ft. Beals noted two existing buildings seen in the aerial view of the property would be demolished and replaced with the new proposed structure. Beals presented site plans of the existing and proposed structures. There are two proposed new structures in the site plan; the secon d is a car port that does not need a variance and is not attached to the proposed garage. The only structure in question today is the proposed garage. One variance request today is to exceed the dormer length. That dormer is visible on the aerial site plan. The code says a dormer can exist on an accessory building with two qualifications: 1) it must be setback two feet from the wall below it (which the proposed window is), and 2) the length of the dormer must not exceed 25% of the wall below it (the proposed window does exceed the 25% limit). Beals presented the proposed elevation views, noting the position of the dormer. With the position of the proposed carport, the visibility of the dormer on the garage is very limited. Beals suggested that the added increase has to do with what is being stored in the garage, as the applicants desire is to make way for a boat and a car. The increase in square footage of an additional 92 sq ft is needed to accommodate storage of the boat. The attic/dormer area is not increasing floor area. Based on the elevations, the boat side is just a bit longer than the car side, resulting in the increase in square footage. Beals also stated that even with the additional increase of 92 sq ft, it does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot or the allowable floor area for the rear half of the property. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 6 December 12, 2021 Beals presented pictures of the rear and front of the property, making note of the existing structures which would be demolished. Beals also presented alley views looking north and south, noting existing similar structures along the alley way. Chair La Mastra asked Beals for clarification regarding dormers, asking if the limit of 25% dormer size would also be a limit on the number of dormers allowed on a given wall. Could one have two dormers that are each 25% of the wall? Beals responded that they don’t often see that question posed. Beals offered to review code section for accuracy. Commission member Lawton asked, based on the provided site plans, if there was encroachment on the setbacks due to wall placement or allowable eave encroachment. Beals confirmed the encroachment was based on allowable eave setbacks. Beals stated that he could not find any limits on the number of dormers allowed, so technically Chair La Mastra’s assessment is correct that one could have multiple dormers on a garage, each me asuring 25% of the total wall length. Application Presentation: Applicant’s representative Heidi Shuff, Architect, and applicant Jon Melia, 610 Whedbee Street, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and both agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Shuff thanked Beals for the thoroughness of his presentation and offered some statements of clarification. Shuff stated the reason behind the variance is to allow for boat storage on the north side, which is somewhat separate from the garage storage on the south side. Based on the boat size, the north side of the garage is longer. The south side is stepped in on the east and west sides to reduce overall mass and scale. By stepping the garage on two sides, it also lowers the gables that are come out towards the alley and back yard. Shuff added that as far as the variance regarding the width of the gable, it is nominal and inconsequential due to the fact that it is barely visible over the carport structure when viewed from the south. The purpose of the gable is to allow more natural light to enter the attic storage area. The applicant performs some glass projects, and the space could be utilized for materials storage as well as a small workspace. Shuff also stated that this lot is 9,500 sq ft, which is the largest standard size lot in this zone district, with the minimum lot size being 5,000 sq ft. This garage, at 692 sq ft, represents 7% of the overall lot size, whereas a 600 sq ft lot on a 5,000 sq ft lot would be taking up 12% of the lot area. Therefore, the density of the lot is nominal and inconsequential in order to provide the 692 sq ft garage on the site. Shuff commented because the garage will be without habitable space, the height requirements are much less. The allowed height for a non-habitable garage is 20 feet, whereas a garage with habitable space would have an allowable roof height of 24 feet. So, the overall mass and scale is quite a bit smaller than it could be by code, but because of the lack of habitable space the requirements are more stringent. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer began discussion and offered his appreciation to the applicant’s thoughtfulness regarding not doing more than they needed with the building and sizing the garage first to fit the boat and then stepping the garage back was a thoughtful suggestion in order to minimize impact of the square footage and footprint, while also creating visual interest. The design fits with the neighborhood character as well. Regarding the dormer, Meyer stated that the point is very valid that the carport will block the view of the dormer, which is evident in the 3D View - Garage Southeast rendering. IT makes the slight increase in the size of the dormer very nominal and inconsequential. Meyer stated his support for the variance request. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 7 December 12, 2021 Commission member Lawton stated his opinion that the proposed plan was good and appeared to be nominal and inconsequential. Lawton stated he understood the need for usage in the attic area, which seems to be a good fit. Lawton does not see the dormer as an issue as it is well hidden and in line with the character of the neighborhood. Lawton commented that the size of the building has been accommodated well by the size of the eaves and does not present an impact to the overall area; instead, it would be a positive impact. Lawton stated his support for the variance request. Commission member McCoy stated his support for the variance request and agreed with the previous statements offered by Meyer and Lawton. Chair La Mastra offered her input, commenting she did not see an issue with the dormer width, if you are allowed more than one it is inconsequential to have one dormer at a given length or two dormers at half the given length. Regarding the building height, that may be more of a concern if it were habitable space but because it is storage and intermittent workspace, there is no issue, especially because it is in the interior of the property and not at the property line. La Mastra sta ted that she did appreciate the applicant’s statements regarding overall percentage of footprint compared to lot size, because not only is it nominal and inconsequential, but could easily be argued or better than the code as well, in that there is less of an overall impact on density here versus another structure. La Mastra stated her his support for the variance request and agreed with the previous statements offered by the Commission. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220002 based on the following findings: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; the dormer is blocked in view by the roof of the carport; the proposed building is setback an additional 14 feet from the minimum side setback; only a portion of the building is extend to a 28 foot length, and the additional square footage does not exceed the allowable square footage for the property. Therefore, the variance reques t 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. Yeas: Lawton, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - Recusal: Shuff THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. • OTHER BUSINESS a. 2022 LURC Work Plan (@9:39am, Vice Chair Shuff rejoined the hearing) Beals presented the 2022 Land Use Review Commission (LURC) work plan to the Commission for consideration. The plan outlines the general scope of the Commission, as well as the projected number of cases the Commission is anticipated to see in the 2022 calendar year. Beals Chair La Mastra asked Beals if he recalled the number of appeals heard by the Commission in 2021, as she remembered it to be more than the 50 appeals estimated in the 2022 Work Plan. Additionally, La Mastra asked Beals if he anticipated any change in the number of appeals due to updates to the Land Use Code. Beals responded that he estimated the Commission would still see approximately 50 appeals this year. Land Use Code updates will happen mid-year, and there will be a bit of a transition time after that. The goal of the update would be to reduce the number of appeals. Beals advised the Commission that if they feel comfortable with the 2022 Work Plan a presented, they could make a motion to formally adopt the work plan for the year. Commission Member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the 2022 LURC work plan as presented. Yeas: Shuff, Lawton, La Mastra, McCoy, Meyer Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 Land Use Review Commission Page 8 December 12, 2021 Beals provided a brief update to the Commission, noting that the Land Use Code update mentioned earlier is indeed coming this year. Other commission have been given the full diagnostic report on the current land use code, and after that report what the recommendations would be. Beals offered to do that for this Commission via presentation or other means or provide links to Commission members to review the information at their leisure. Chair La Mastra commented that she believes it important to understand contextually within the code how everything is working together, and the overall direction of it. Whether or not people feel they need a presentation is open for discussion – sometimes its nice to be able to ask questions in person. At minimum, the information should be sent to all Commission, and that there is the understanding that all members will review on their own. La Mastra asked the Commission if they would like Beals to give a presentation. Vice Chair Shuff stated that it would be great if the information could be provided to Commission members; Shuff has also had the opportunity to see Beals’ presentation through another committee Shuff serves on. Shuff commented that the information and data contained within the presentation were valuable and informative, and recommended that all members take a look at it. Commission member Lawton agreed that members could review the materials on their own time. Lawton stated that he would like to know based upon the typical types of variances the Commission comes across, what are the major changes that would impact the appeals seen. Whether that is staff presentation, or a summary page would be fine. We could achieve that at the end of one of these meetings. Commission member Meyer agreed with Lawton that the material could be reviewed on his own time. Meyer commented that it would be helpful to have a 5-10 minute bullet-point presentation covering the items that are changing that would impact this commission. La Mastra asked Beals if that type of presentation would be doable, with information sent to all commission members. Beals responded that he would provide a link to the diagnostic report to all commission members. When staff is at a point where they are ready to do a public release of a draft code, that may be a good time for Beals to present those highlights to the commission at the end of a monthly meeting. Beals offered that just to be clear, the updates will not be changing sign code . There will be multiple phases to updating the land use code; this initial phase is just focused on housing related issues to implement the housing strategic plan. Staff are looking at ways to create more housing capacity and more affordability in housing, as much as can be done through code which can be difficult. The goal is to create more incentives for developers to create more deed-restricted units in a project. We are talking about capacity, because we just don’t have enough housing units in this community to meet current or projected housing demands. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 9:49am Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CD158C6-D43C-4EB0-B185-CCA545661252 3/28/2022