HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 09/08/2022
Shelley La Mastra, Chair
Ian Shuff, Vice Chair
David Lawton
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Nathanial Coffman
Katie Vogel
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
SEPTEMBER 8, 2022
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
All Commission members were present with the exception of Commission member Vogel.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Shuff made a motion to approve the August 11, 2022, Regular Hearing Minutes with corrections
requested by Lawton. The motion was adopted; Commission members La Mastra, McCoy, and
Lawton voted to abstain.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA220026
Address: 1024 S Lemay Ave.
Owner: UCHealth / Poudre Valley Hospital
Petitioner: Ashley Ray, UCHealth Design & Construction
Zoning District: E
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) and Table (G)(2); 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1);
3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1)
Project Description:
This is a variance request for an additional 5 ground signs in addition current ground signage currently
on site.
Sign "2" is requesting 3 variances: (1) 8 feet from southern property line, where 15 feet is the required
setback from interior lot lines. (2) 2 feet from the western property line where 10 feet is the minimum
required setback for a ground sign that is 9.67 feet tall. (3) An additional primary ground sign where
only 1 is allowed per frontage.
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 September 8, 2022
Sign "7" is requesting 1 variance: (1) An additional ground sign where only 1 is allowed per frontage.
Sign "11" is requesting 1 variance: (1) An additional ground sign where only 1 is allowed per frontage.
Sign "14" is requesting 2 variances: (1) An additional ground sign where only 1 is allowed per frontage.
(2) 14 feet from southern property line, where 15 feet is the required setback from interior lot lines.
Sign "19" is requesting 1 variance: (1) An additional ground sign where only 1 is allowed per frontage.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on the corner of Doctors Ln and S Lemay, and comprises the hospital facilities. The
request is for additional ground signs. This commission has heard previous requests for additional
ground signs at this location, and those requests have been approved. This is an emergency facility,
and the additional signs are mostly necessary to direct those experiencing an emergency to the
appropriate location in a timely manner. Code restricts the number of ground signs a property can
have, based on total frontage. This property only has two frontages, along Doctors Ln and along S
Lemay Ave. The ground signs being request add more ground signs along Lemay, as well as within
the interior of the property. A variance is necessary because our code states that if signs are visible
from an abutting property, they are counted against one’s sign allowance. All signs being requested
today are illuminated.
Continuing, Beals presented a site plan denoting the proposed locations of the additional ground
signs. With the reconstruction occurring at the hospital site, some existing signs will be re-done and/or
relocated. Sign 2 as marked on the plan requires a variance due to the height based on its proximity to
the public right of way. Code states you can go higher the further back from the right of way a sign is
located. There is also a requirement for setback from the back face of the sidewalk. Due to some
existing landscaping and slope of the immediate area, the sign is requested to be set within the
required setback.
Additional ground signs are also proposed along the entrance drives, helipad entry, and hospital main
entrance. They are interior signs but require a variance due to their visibility amongst abutting
properties. Beals presented renderings and design sketches of the proposed signs, noting their
increased height and location in relation to the public right of way and property line.
Beals noted the site is currently under construction and pointed out in pictures where the existing
property line is located and the approximate location of the proposed signs along the S Lemay Ave
frontage.
Chair La Mastra asked if Sign 2 is asking for a variance based on the distance from the right of way,
not the distance from the property to the abutting residential property line. Beals responded that the
proposed Sign 2 is asking for a variance for its location in relation to the public right of way and asked
Zoning Inspector Missy Nelson to confirm whether or not it was in compliance with the distance to the
residential property. Nelson responded that the proposed sign location also needs a variance based
on its being closer to the residential property than allowed by code. La Mastra asked staff how much
over allowed the sign is located; Beals responded the sign is set back at 8 feet, while the requirement
is a 15-foot setback. Nelson confirmed this to be accurate. La Mastra asked for confirmation that the
residential property owners had received notice of the variance request; staff confirmed this as
accurate.
Commission Lawton asked if Sign 2 was illuminated; Beals confirmed that the sign will be illuminated.
La Mastra asked for confirmation that the reason the proposed sign location is within the required 15-
foot setback is to prevent people from entering the turn lane and then trying to merge back in to traffic.
Beals stated that would be his suspicion, though that can be confirmed by the applicant during their
presentation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 September 8, 2022
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representatives Jeff Mann, ArtCraft Sign, and Ashley Ray, UC Health Design & Construction,
addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Mann provided some
data for the record, stating that according to UC Health internal data, ER visits totaled 169 visits per
day, representing over 60,000 visits a year. The main thrust of the request is that from northbound
Lemay Ave., if one is looking for the Emergency Room, a driver needs to quickly discern the main
entrance from the Emergency Room entrance. If one mistakenly takes the turn lane for the main
entrance, they are forced to navigate all the way through the parking lot, back to Doctors Lane and
around to the Emergency Room entrance. Thus, the proposed signs and locations 7, 14, and 19 are
being requested to assist in quick navigation through the property back to the ER. Hopefully, Sign 2
will assist in navigating drivers up N Lemay to Doctors Ln, where they can easily take a right-hand turn
into the dedicated Emergency Room entrance drive.
Commission member Lawton asked if the additional signs are mainly for directional purposes and
navigating through the parking lot to get to the correct location. Mann responded that assessment was
correct; the main purpose is to distinguish for drivers between the separate main, ER, and ambulance
entrances present within the hospital grounds.
Chair La Mastra posed a question regarding directional signage. If a driver approaches and follows the
sign to Doctors Lane, how do they know where to go from there? Mann indicated that location #27 (not
included in the variance), has a directional arrow. La Mastra indicated that sign points out to the street.
Applicant representative Randulfo Ponce addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing
in a hybrid format. Ponce stated that sign #28 would further direct drivers to the ER entrance. La
Mastra asked for clarification regarding the reasoning behind why sign #2 has to be placed further
south that the required 15-foot setback from the neighboring residential property. Ponce responded
that the intent is to prevent drivers from entering the right-hand turn lane and then having to perform a
last-minute merge back into northbound travel lanes of S Lemay Ave to reach Doctors Ln. La Mastra
asked if there was a history of accidents at this location due to merges as described. Ponce responded
there was a history of having to install a lot of temporary signage to prevent drivers from entering at
that location.
Ashley Ray commented one of the main goals of this signage project is to create a space at PVH that
is very obviously the main entrance. The current renovations will ultimately draw a lot of folks into the
main entrance, but folks that need to get to the ER entrance quickly need to be effectively directed
away from the main entrance to the dedicated ER department entrance drive. Ponce commented that
temporary signs are available in the provided image and are an example of the current measures that
are being taken to prevent driver errors and accidents near the hospital entrances.
La Mastra the applicants to confirm her understanding that increased sign heights and encroachment
in the required setbacks have been deemed necessary in order to provide maximum visibility of the
signs to drivers in the adjacent street. Ponce confirmed that if the signs were set further back into the
property, existing trees and landscaping could obscure visibility. The trees may not be cut down
according to existing code requirements.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Lawton began discussion, stating he totally understands the intent to provide
more information sooner to drivers through signage as they approach and enter the hospital facility.
Lawton also noted the lack of neighbor comment regarding this appeal, pointing out that one of the
proposed signs is almost on the property line. As long as the property owner has been properly
notified and has not submitted comment, there is no longer a concern.
Commission member Coffman stated anything that can be done to increase the predictability of traffic
interactions at this location, particularly those involving vehicles trying to merge out of the turn lane
back through the bike lane and travel lane 1, would be of benefit to the public good and safety.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 4 September 8, 2022
Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220026 for
the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to
the public good; the increased signage will be beneficial to the public good to give clear
direction to those in emergency situations; the campus setting of the hospital includes a
longer street frontage than the typical nonresidential uses; Signs 7, 11, 14 and 19 are internal
to the site and a six-foot fence separates the residential properties from the hospital grounds;
existing sidewalk location, trees and drive access limit the location of ground sign to be
effectively visible during an emergency situation. Therefore, the variance requests will not
diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the
context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code
contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra, Coffman, McCoy, Lawton Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
2. APPEAL ZBA220027
Address: 324 Jefferson St.
Owner/ Petitioner: R.T. Custer
Zoning District: D
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B)Table(B)
Project Description:
This is a variance request for a 6.67-foot-tall wall sign to be installed within 15 feet of the elevation of
the sidewalk below, where 4.5 feet is the maximum allowable height.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on Jefferson St. and is an L-shaped building with a portion that fronts right on the
public sidewalk along Jefferson St, with the other portion setback from the sidewalk with a parking
area in front. Sign code updates that occurred five years ago placed a limitation on sign height on the
first floor within the downtown district. That limit is 15-feet above sidewalk grade. The purpose of that
requirement is to keep signs at the pedestrian level at the appropriate size and scale to the pedestrian
environment. Taller sings could be installed above 15 feet. This sign was created above the 4.5-foot
size that is allowed at the front level; the applicant is proposing installation of the sign on the portion of
the building that is setback from the sidewalk, above the parking lot area. Thus, the sign would be
setback from the pedestrian scale frontage along the sidewalk.
Beals described the front elevation of the building, noting that the façade includes faux stone and
metal cladding. The proposed sign location is above the existing trash enclose area and is below the
15-foot elevation of the sidewalk. This distance from the sidewalk to that portion of the building is over
50 feet. The sign as constructed is a 6-foot 8-inch diameter stainless steel dye cut element, with a non-
reflective distressed finish.
To clarify, Chair La Mastra asked if the 15-foot height requirement is in place regardless of the
setback. Beals answered in the affirmative, noting that most buildings in the downtown area do not
have a setback area as this property does, and are instead right up against the public right of way.
This building is unique within the downtown district.
Vice-Chair Shuff asked, based on the sign code, if the same sign could be installed at a 15-foot height
in that location, which would probably be taller than the building. Beals confirmed and noted that wall
signs are not permitted go over roof line.
Commission member Lawton asked if the variance pertained only to the specific location on the
building, and that the sign could not be moved. Beals stated this was accurate and added that not only
would be variance pertain to the specific location being proposed, but it also to the dimensions of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 5 September 8, 2022
sign. Content can change over the years, but location and dimensions could not be changed if this
variance is approved.
Shuff asked for the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the setback portion of the
building. Beals answered that when he calculated the measurement, it is approximately 50 feet.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicants R.T. Custer and Tyler Wolfe addressed the Commission, and both agreed to hold the
hearing in a hybrid remote format. Custer stated the staff presentation was thorough and accurately
represented what was included in the application for variance. Custer highlighted the fact that they
could not place the sign at the required 15-foot height because their building is not tall enough, and
they made the sign the size that it is to ensure that it was scaled appropriately for visibility purposes. In
addition to the facts presented in the application, Custer noted that they have had may folks voice
confusion regarding the nature of their business, parking access, etc. Placing the sign near the corner
of their building will hopefully alleviate some of the confusion and improve safety in the immediate
vicinity.
Chair La Mastra asked if the applicants owned the portion of the building with the rock façade; the
applicant indicated that they do own that portion of the property as well.
Applicant Wolfe added that part of the reason for making the sign the size that it is was due to the fact
that previous to their ownership, the building had a 10-foot-tall logo sign on the side. Wolfe stated he
was unaware of the sign code and was encouraged to produce the sign at its current size by their
general contractor. In relation to the previous 10-foot sign, the applicants felt their sign represented a
conservative size. Because the sign has already been produced and paid for, it would hurt financially if
a new sign needed to be produced.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Meyer stated his support for the request, given that the sign is intended to be
wall-mounted on a building face that is 50 feet back from the sidewalk, and it is competing with
signage directly adjacent to the property. This request is reasonable and makes a lot of sense and is a
great example of why we have this process for variance requests.
Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments offered by Meyer, adding that this would
promote good business within the downtown area. Additionally, the proposed location of the sign could
help to improve traffic conditions at the location by clarifying parking and pull-in areas. Lawton stated
his support for approval of the variance request.
Chair La Mastra commented that the perspective of distance from the sidewalk creates a scenario
where the sign would appear to be similar size to one at correct height/size. This appears to be a very
nominal and inconsequential impact given the large setback from the sidewalk. La Mastra stated her
support for approval of the variance request.
Vice-Chair Shuff agreed with the points made by previous commission members, agreeing with La
Mastra’s comment regarding relative vanishing points. Shuff stated his support for approval of the
variance request.
Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Coffman to APPROVE ZBA220027
based on the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the
proposed sign location is 50 feet from the back of the public sidewalk; the parking lot is in
between the public sidewalk and the building. Therefore, the variance requests will not diverge
from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the
neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in
Section 1.2.2.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 6 September 8, 2022
Yeas: Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra, Coffman, McCoy, Lawton Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
3. APPEAL ZBA220028
Address: 503 Mathews St. #3
Owner: Annmarie Banchy & John Green
Petitioner: Steve Josephs, Contractor
Zoning District: N-C-B
Code Section: 4.9(D)(5); 4.9(D)(6)(c)
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 2nd floor rear entry to exceed the total square footage allowed in the
rear-half by 368 square feet. The maximum allowed is 1,224 feet. Additionally, for the proposed entry
to encroach 6 feet 9 inches into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on a corner of E Mulberry St and Mathews St. The lot was originally platted with the
town plat in 1873 and included a second parcel that is between the subject property and the alley. In
time, the house that was built on the second parcel received a second parcel. The result was a rear
lot-line closer to the existing building. There is reduced setback to the rear line when abutting an alley,
of about 5 feet. If not abutting an alley, the rear setback to lot line is 15 feet.
This existing property has multiple units within the building itself. This request is to re-work the rear
entrance to the upper story unit. The site plan shows the proposed addition to the back, which would
allow for covered entry for the stairwell to the upper unit. A re-constructed entry needs to be built to
current code, which results in a bigger proposed entry than current.
As proposed, the addition would include three stairs up to a landing, then a covered entry way with
doors from both sides. From the entry way, one would proceed up a small staircase to the upper unit.
Beals presented photographs of the existing entryway for context, noting the presence of the second
building visible in the rear yard. The proposed entry would extend further west towards the rear
property line.
Commission member Meyer noted that according to the submitted drawings, the proposed addition on
the ground floor is noted to be 111 square feet, which puts the total square footage on the rear half of
the lot over the allowed maximum by 368 square feet. Is it correct to determine the existing house
already has 257 square feet over in the rear of the lot? Beals responded that this assessment is
correct.
Commission member Lawton clarified that the current entry is not built to code, and what is being
proposed is larger due in part to current code requirements. Beals confirmed this, noting that a larger
entryway also allows an individual adequate space to enter the covered entryway, turn, and then
proceed up the stairwell to the second-floor unit.
Chair La Mastra asked if the second house on the rear parcel meets the required setback. Beals
stated that the second house is definitely non-conforming, which is typical of lot usage in this district.
La Mastra asked if there would be ten feet between the structures if the entryway were constructed as
proposed.
Commission member McCoy asked if the rear lot is legal, even if the structure is non-conforming.
Beals responded that the parcel is recognized—it is considered a parcel not a lot, and there are some
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 7 September 8, 2022
semantics involved there. The structure on that parcel is non-conforming in multiple ways, including
location of the building as well as size of the parcel. It is considered legal non-conforming. Beals
described the difference between a parcel and a lot, noting that a lot is what you see on a plat; a
parcel is a number given by the Assessor’s office as a means to inventory and keep track of
properties. Not all parcels are always the exact lots. A parcel could contain multiple lots within a
subdivision, or a portion of a single lot within a subdivision. Lots and parcels don’t always match up.
City Attorney Aaron Guin stated that according to section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code, “a lot shall
mean a designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision or otherwise permitted
by law to be used or occupied or designed.”
Vice-Chair Shuff asked if the parcel is owned by the same individual as the lot. Beals answered that he
did not believe they were owned by the same entity, but the applicant could provide clarification.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Annmarie Banchy addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid
remote format. Banchy explained the house was originally built in 1884, and the lot at that time
consisted of a two-story barn (now converted to the residential property in the back, addressed as 215
E Mulberry). The house was built a year later; in total, there were four brick structures on the building
consisting of the carriage house, barn, outbuilding, and residential home. Overtime the building has
been used as a sorority and multi-family housing. 215 E Mulberry was subdivided in 1945 with a zero
lot-line. In 1979, it became a duplex and continues as such.
Banchy stated she purchased the property (503 Mathews) a few years ago; the entrance to unit 3 was
deemed in need of updating for safety. The intent is to create a new entry that is structurally sound as
well as maintaining historical standards. The proposed plan is the slimmest version that attempts to
meet land use codes will still providing usable entry to unit 3. This will be the third time the entry has
been rebuilt; this effort is intended to provide more interior navigable space within the entryway
portion.
Commission member Lawton asked if this construction is being reviewed with historical sensitivity?
Banchy answered yes, though the structure is not yet designated with landmark status. It is in the
Laurel School historic neighborhood and is emblematic of that area and history.
Commission Discussion:
Vice-Chair Shuff commented that because the two parcels have different ownership and are legally
defined as two separate properties, it helps to consider the increased square footage of this property
specifically. The request seems reasonable and represents a small-scale massing of the structure.
Because the rear structure is already non-conforming within the rear of the lot and rear setback, the
proposed addition to the entryway would be nominal and inconsequential given the surrounding
context and structures along the alley. Given these factors, Shuff stated his support for granting the
variance as requested.
Commission member Meyer stated that he would be able to support the request as well, and it seems
to be respectfully designed and would entail the minimal amount of work to achieve the task at hand.
The addition represents a 7.5% increase over what exists today, which would be nominal and
inconsequential. Meyer stated his support for approving the request.
Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments offered previously, commenting that the
proposal addresses safety issues that may be created by the current entryway’s lack of covered space
and narrow interior area.
Chair La Mastra added that regarding this type of lot, when you have a rear yard up against a side
yard, we are just considering where we properties are addressed as far as impact.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 8 September 8, 2022
Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220028
based on the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; an existing
entry is being replaced similar in size and location; the proposed entry is at the main level; an
existing fence limits the visibility of the proposed entry. Therefore, the variance request will not
diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way, when considered in the
context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code
contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra, Coffman, McCoy, Lawton Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
4. APPEAL ZBA220029
Address: 501 Edwards St.
Owner/Petitioner: Adam Jasper
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2)
Project Description:
This is a request to exceed the total square footage allowed by 499.25 square feet. The maximum
permitted is 2,556.75 square feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property may be familiar to some Commission members, as this property has been before the
commission twice previously. Beals noted the property is located on the corner of Edwards St. and
Whedbee St., and the request is for a new house to be built on the property. The structure depicted in
aerial photos has since been removed, and a new home has been constructed in its place. Previous
requests were to build closer to the side setback along the west; as a corner lot there is a 15-foot side-
yard setback. Additionally, there was an overhang request for the second story to overhang the first on
the front of the structure.
Beals described the applicants purchased the property with the intent of scraping existing structures
and building a new residence. Floor area standards have not changed since the purchase of the
property and through design stage. Thus, most or all of the allowable floor area is loaded into the
primary building on the lot.
The request today is to increase the allowable floor area for the property, to allow for construction of a
garage on the rear of the property. Site plans provided by the applicant describe the location of the
previous property, the residence currently under construction, and the location of the proposed
Garage. Beals made note that the garage would also need to meet the 15-foot side-yard setback,
which is included in the current request as well.
Illustrations of the garage describe a typical single-story, two-car garage, with a garage door facing the
alley and a person door facing the house. Two windows would face the sidewalk. The site does now
include a gravel parking area that could be improved with asphalt or concrete without any variance
request. If built as requested, the property would exceed the allowable floor area due to all of that area
being included in the residence that is currently under construction.
Beals presented pictures of the properties as it appears currently under construction, noting the front
overhang that was previously requested and approved, as well as the setback reduction that was
approved along the street. Views taken from the alley show the proposed location of the garage
behind the primary residence. Beals noted there are some garages along the alley going east along
the block; not all buildings are two-story and have the extra square footage to allow for a garage on the
property. Some of the existing garages and alley structures are undoubtedly non-conforming.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 9 September 8, 2022
Chair La Mastra asked if there were a clear street view facing east, which would show the neighboring
two-story residence. Beals pointed out one picture in which the neighboring building is partially visible,
but no clearer image is available. Beals confirmed that the neighboring building is two-story.
Commission member Coffman noted that the applicant’s written statement discusses storm water
runoff when discussing the added impermeable area of the garage. Coffman asked Beals is that is the
intention of the standard for allowable floor area on a given lot? Beals responded the standard was
written quite a while ago; the primary intent of the standard is to preserve open space on the property
and to preserve the use and character of the neighborhood, which is not to have structures completely
fill in the lot. Additionally, there is an intent not to create looming structures onto neighboring
properties, which can occur if lots become completely built out.
La Mastra noted the 15-foor side setback requirement needed to be met but was not addressed in the
application for variance. Does that element need to be added as an additional element of this
variance? Beals responded if the variance is approved, that element would need to be added to the
approval. La Mastra asked Beals to confirm that the previously approved request for variance allowing
the residence to encroach into the required side-yard setback does not apply to any additional or
future structures. Beals confirmed this as accurate, stating each structure that were to encroach needs
its own variance.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Adam Jaspers addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in
a remote hybrid format. Jaspers stated that because this is a corner lot, there is a15-foot setback from
the lot line despite the fact that the lot is plated the same as interior lots, with a 40-foot total width. This
makes it very difficult to build a functional building in the rear, where building design is essentially
limited to a width of 15 feet. To the west, there is also another 25 feet of city easement. From an
aesthetic standpoint, the building does not appear to dominate the lot from the west side of Whedbee.
The building also needed to be moved an additional 1 foot (resulting in six feet total from the interior lot
line), due to a top of wall height issue.
Chair La Mastra asked if the lot line was the right of way line, or if there was a tract between the lot line
and the right of way line. Jaspers responded the lot line is the right of way there. Beals confirmed there
is no tract between lot and right of way lines.
Jaspers commented the city is generally trying to prevent drive-over on sidewalks and curbs, and
when this lot was re-designed it resulted in the giving up of street access from Whedbee St. All the
parking around the residence is permit parking, and the garage would help to get cars off of the street
that are constantly at risk of being ticketed or towed within the two-hour parking zone.
Commission Discussion:
Vice-Chair Shuff began comments, stating that when doing the basic math, the requested increase in
floor area represents a 20% increase in total allowable floor area, which is fairly significant. Shuff
stated he is not sure he can support this request, given the new house has already maxed out the
FAR. There may have been an opportunity to reduce the area of the house to accommodate the
garage when the lot was being designed. Shuff stated he does not see the justification for hardship.
While the desire for a garage is understandable, the lot is smaller to begin with and is typical of that
part of town. Its hard to compare this lot to others with existing garages, as they may be smaller
residences, and some are one-story structures.
Chair La Mastra spoke to Shuff’s point, commenting that when viewing the aerial view of the lot, the
new house is roughly at the mid-lot line. When compared to all three of the homes that are similar in
placement, they all appear to have garages. So, this appears to be nominal and inconsequential in
context of the neighborhood. The impact will be exactly what is present with the other homes. La
Mastra would be interested to know if those are one or two-story homes. La Mastra stated her biggest
question or concern would be what is the overall impact to that block? Beals presented the Google
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 10 September 8, 2022
Street view of that block for further review and inspection. The block appears to be a mix of one and
two-story residences.
Shuff noted the maximum allowable size for a garage is 600 square feet, or approximately 25 x 24
feet.
La Mastra commented that nominal and inconsequential is always in context of the neighborhood and
must be assessed within that context.
Commission member Meyer asked if the point being put forward was that the two-story buildings with
garages were also exceeding the allowable floor area for a given lot. La Mastra responded she
couldn’t see how they are not.
Commission member Coffman commented one way this residence diverges from those around it is
that it is setback from the alley and has about 600 feet of concrete driveway in front of it. That will add
to the overall visual impact as well as add to the overall impermeable area, which may affect runoff
back towards the alley.
Meyer posed and area analysis question to Beals: when calculating total square footage for the lot
within the N-C-M zone district, is it true that you can subtract 250 square feet of a detached garage if it
is setback 10 feet behind the primary structure. Is this correct? Measurements aren’t broken out within
the supplied documents, and Meyer wants to be sure this was taken into account. That may mean the
existing house is already over the allowable area.
Beals asked zoning staff if they had additional information; staff responded that those calculations
could be performed now. That overage may have been part of one of the previous variance requests.
La Mastra acknowledged the applicant’s desire to comment and allowed them to make additional
comment and or response to the Commission discussion. Prior to the applicant’s comments, Beals
added that 250 square feet is not “subtracted”, but that figure is instead added to the maximum
allowable floor area for the lot.
Jaspers stated that the neighboring property does have a garage structure in the rear of the lot, but the
view is obscured by tree canopy in the aerial photograph. Additionally, regarding the large driveway
proposed in the back, Jasper stated a desire to place the garage as far back as possible in the lot. La
Mastra commented that within the landscape plan, the garage appears to be significantly closer to the
alley. Jasper indicated this was correct, that they are trying not to eat up the yard between the house
and garage. The drive is intended to create turn-in space off of the alleyway. They would like to have
the garage placed as close to the lot line as possible to preserve yard space.
Coffman asked how far the garage is setback in the landscape layout; Jaspers responded he believed
it is at 10 feet. Beals stated that the requirement is for a garage door to maintain an eight-foot setback
from the alley.
La Mastra commented that a lot of the FAR has more to do with massing and is less-concerned with
storm-water impact. That is why elements like basements and open-sided porches don’t count against
the maximum.
The question of the side-yard setback was brough up by La Mastra, noting they this issue was
addressed in previous variance requests. The Commission previously discussed this being an odd
situation, because unless one knows where the invisible lot line actually is, actual perception of the
property from the street doesn’t change. So, it ends up looking further setback than other homes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 11 September 8, 2022
Beals noted that the accessory building on the neighboring property does appear to be built right on
the lot line and looks as though it was originally built as a single-car garage. It is not longer being used
as such, and there appears to be a parking pad on the rear of the lot that is now used for vehicular
parking on the lot.
Zoning staff Missy Nelson addressed the Commission with revised calculations that now allow for the
250 square feet bonus. With the bonus area included, the total allowable area for the lot is 2,556.75
square feet. On the Building Permit, the existing home is shown to be 2,884 square feet. So, the
property is already the allowable maximum even when the bonus area is included in total calculations.
La Mastra asked for the total amount over; Nelson responded the total overage amounts to 328 sq ft.
La Mastra asked Beals if the previous variance requests included both exceeding FAR and reducing
setback? Beals and Nelson double-checked the previous variance. Nelson stated the previous request
included two variances: the first was to increase the maximum buildable floor area by 80 square feet
(which was without the bonus 250 sq ft, as there was not an accessory structure previously planned).
The second variance was for the higher eave-height on the interior side.
Coffman asked for clarification, stating that with the accessory building FAR increases by 250 square
feet. So, shouldn’t the previous variance have been asking for an increase for over 300 square feet,
because there was not an accessory building included? Beals responded that his guess as to what is
happening with the Building Permit is that the floor area of the porch is being included, but for Land
Use Code purposes the area of the porch is not included. There may be some discrepancies
happening between the two.
La Mastra stated in the context of this neighborhood, she is having a hard time determining that this is
not nominal and inconsequential in the context of the other homes on this block.
Commission member McCoy agreed with the comment of La Mastra, adding that from the perspective
of looking at the lot before this structure is built, and what the applicants are trying to do with the
property, it would be hard to imagine this lot not having an accessory structure or garage when all
others on the block seem to have some sort of structure in the rear yard. Putting a pad of concrete
there and allowing cars to park instead of in a garage, would represent a huge improvement to the
property and the block as a whole. It is strange that on a corner lot the building envelopes get shrunk
down so much as to make it virtually impossible to construct a functional building. This is a great
property and it ought to have a garage.
Coffman agreed that given the context of the neighborhood, with each successive house having an
accessory structure on the alley, it is hard not to view adding a garage to this property as nominal and
inconsequential.
Commission member Lawton commented that one of the mitigating factors here that as we look at this
in the context of the neighborhood, this lot does not have any trees or foliage to otherwise screen this
property. La Mastra stated that is a funny thing about this lot, because the lot line is all public right of
way which prevents the planting of any trees or vegetation along the street side. Missy Nelson stated
that a parkway amendment could be enacted to add plants there.
La Mastra stated that she would support the garage in the context of the neighborhood but questioned
the side yard setback. Is it possible that the size of the garage could be reduced?
Meyer commented that he had no problem with the side yard setback as proposed and stated that
element would need to be included in the motion if the variance were to be approved. In terms of the
hardship justification, it is understood. In terms neighborhood context and the request to far-exceed
the allowable area, Meyer commented he would need to see more data regarding two-story structrues
with garages along that block. It is difficult to make accurate assessment based on aerial views and
street-level views. Meyer agreed that the property should have a garage; however, if a client
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 12 September 8, 2022
purchased the property and came with their programming needs, Meyer would look at the property and
tell them what their options were in order to make the property the most functional. This may have
necessitated reducing the overall size and massing of the residence in order to allow for a garage to
be built on the rear of the property. Meyer can’t get around the fact that the applicant cornered
themselves with a self-made hardship, because they chose to propose this design and move forward,
without first considering other options that would accommodate a garage in a wholistic approach.
Shuff agreed with the comments offered by Meyer, adding that this speaks to the recent updates and
changes being proposed to the Land Use Code in residential zone districts. This project has some
massing challenges and does need a garage. These districts are challenging as they are strict with
limitation on total area and massing in an effort to preserve the character of the zone districts.
Because of these factors, Shuff is not able to support the variance at this time.
McCoy asked if we don’t see this all over town already? Shuff responded the new changes don’t
appear to be helping, as the new codes will be more restrictive and will restrict total area to 2,000
square feet. McCoy stated these limitations can make housing even more challenging. This will force
the resident to park cars in the back without the amenity of a garage.
Missy Nelson returned to discussion with more information regarding the total size of neighboring
homes as well as the size of detached garages. Nelson described that three homes along the rest of
the block are under their allowable floor area, including space devoted to accessory buildings/garages.
All lots are about 5,600 square feet according to the Assessor’s database. 501 Edwards lot is 5,207
square feet. So proportionally, the proposed overage is even larger.
City Attorney Aaron Guin noted there had been some reference to potential updates of the Land Use
Code and directed Commission members to address their discussion to the standards included in the
current version of the Land Use Code.
Coffman stated while it may seem that the proposed garage would be in context of the neighborhood,
the fact that none of the neighboring lots with garages are over their allowable square footage would
lead to the belief that the proposed garage needs to be reduced in size. Given they have already been
granted a variance to exceed the FAR, and the entire floor area of the garage would be over FAR and
be the only property on the block to do so, Coffman is not in support of the variance request at this
time.
Lawton acknowledged the good comment and discussion put forth by the Commission, noting that it
would have been great to include the garage in preliminary plans rather than how through a variance
request. Lawton noted his concern with massing on that corner, as the combination of two-story
residence and garage would create a diminished perspective as one enters the block/neighborhood.
Lawton continued, stating that he really hates being in the position of having to make multiple
variances to one property as construction continues, rather than having some foresight put into the
front of the project.
McCoy again stated his opinion that this property really needs a garage, noting the fact that the lot is
smaller than the rest, but the property itself from back of walk to property line is much bigger than
anything else on the block. The increase in massing is offset by the comparatively larger setback.
McCoy would be in support of granting the variance request as proposed.
Meyer reiterated his opinion that this is a case where the applicant is trying to ask for forgiveness after
the fact. Given the fact that this became a demolition and subsequent complete rebuild, Meyer is of the
opinion that the garage and property as a whole ought to have been considered at the start of the
design process. Meyer feels the property ought to have a garage, but building the house first and then
asking for forgiveness later is not the way to do it.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
Land Use Review Commission Page 13 September 8, 2022
La Mastra commented that she is having a hard time with this request, given the context that this lot
does appear larger than the other lots. However, the side elevation of this home is pretty looming, so
thinking of the property wholistically at the beginning would have been preferred. The lack of trees also
creates a scenario where the impact of the massing is magnified on that corner. Given the information
provided by Nelson and Beals regarding adjacent lots, La Mastra would have a hard time approving as
nominal and inconsequential in context of the neighborhood when other homes are meeting the code
as it stands. La Mastra agrees with other Commission members who are not ready to approve this
request as submitted.
Commission Member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Meyer to DENY ZBA220029 based
on the following findings: the request is a 19% increase in the allowable floor area; insufficient
evidence has been prov in es how the proposal would be nominal and inconsequential in the
context of the neighborhood; insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the
proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies
with the standards; insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship
not caused by the applicant.
Yeas: Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra, Coffman, Lawton Nays: McCoy Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:40am
Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8823A069-5EF4-40FC-9BE0-78391561CB66
11/30/2022