Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - Minutes - 12/08/2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair Nathanial Coffman David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer 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 DECEMBER 8, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Commission members Shuff, Lawton, Coffman, and McCoy were present; commission members Meyer, Vogel, and Chair La Mastra were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (November 10, 2022 Minutes) Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the November 10, 2022, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220035 Address: 3044 Reliant St. Owner/Petitioner: Doug & Janine Fritch Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(2) & 3.5.2(E)(3) Project Description: This is a request for two variances to build a detached pergola: 1) Request to encroach 2 feet into the 8-foot rear setback. 2) Request to encroach 6 feet into the 15-foot corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located in the Mosaic neighborhood, north of Mulberry Ave. and east of Timberline Dr. The subject property is at the corner of Reliant St. and Dozier Rd. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: EC9F7778-A9F9-4B3B-AF41-0E533B7DA401 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Minutes - December 8, 2022 The request is to build a pergola in the northeast corner of the property, extending the covered deck area towards the rear and side property lines. The house currently sits at the required 15-foot side setback from the property line; currently the house is approximately 21 feet from the rear property line. Because the side of the property is along a street, the required setback is considered a “street-side” setback, which requires 15 feet as apposed to an interior side setback which would require a 5-foot setback. The proposed element is a pergola, open on all four sides with a semi-transparent roof. The proposed location would place the pergola up to the 6-foot easement that runs along the back property line, with a 2-foot encroachment into the rear setback, and nine feet from the side property line. Looking at a picture of the front of the house, Beals pointed out the side yard where the encroachment would occur. Beals noted some elements that are allowed in a setback, including a fence of six feet or smaller (with a conforming fence currently present) which does not have to be transparent; this existing fence is probably more visually intrusive than the proposed pergola, which is open on all four sides. The proposed pergola location and existing paver landscaping are visible in pictures of the rear of the property. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Scott Hodson, of Grounded Landscape Designs, addressed the commission and offered comment. Hodson stated that the main reason that a variance is being requested is due to the limitations of the corner lot; if the 15-foot side setback were maintained, it would not leave any room for the proposed pergola structure. Other locations in the yard are not feasible and would require a taller pergola structure. As currently presented, height can be limited to approximately 9 feet and be more in proportion with a normal pergola. Drainage to the west needs to be maintained, which means the pergola needs to be placed within the east portion of the yard. To the east of the property is a large open space, so the pergola would not be blocking others’ view and would be behind the existing 6-foot fence. Neighbors to the northwest and southwest have planted trees for visual blocks already, and there are no vehicular sight lines that would be blocked. Additionally, the proposed location does not encroach on any of the existing utility easements. Commission member Lawton asked Hodson to clarify if the structure would be 9 feet tall, as the drawings have a height of 8 feet marked. Hodson stated that the 8-foot measurement in the drawing are from the paver grade to the bottom of the beam (representing clearance under the beam); the beams are 2 inches x 10 inches, so total height to the top of the beam would be 8 feet 10 inches. Lawton asked if the pergola would be open at the top; Hodson explained that roof rails are built flush with the top of the main beams and are spaced at 1 foot 3 inches. Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy stated that he had no objection to the request as submitted and recommended that the request be approved. Commission member Coffman agreed with McCoy’s recommendation to approve, noting that the most visual impact occurs to the east, where any potential future neighbors would be located across the street. On the rear side, the pergola would extend only 3 feet above the existing fence line; additionally, existing trees help to obscure the view between adjacent homes. Commission member Lawton agreed with the recommendation to approve, commenting that because it is a street-facing corner lot there is a wider setback requirement; the proposed pergola would build character in the property and the project plan is solid. Vice-Chair Shuff agreed with the previous comments and noted his appreciation for the applicant’s presentation in calling out site constraints and thought process behind the proposed location. Commission Member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to APPROVE ZBA220035 for the following reasons: under section 2.10.4(H) the variance is within the condition not detrimental to the public good; the pergola is open on four sides; the covering is semi- transparent; the pergola is behind a 6-foot tall privacy fence; the pergola does not encroach into the existing easements. Therefore, the variance requests will not diverge from the DocuSign Envelope ID: EC9F7778-A9F9-4B3B-AF41-0E533B7DA401 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 Minutes - December 8, 2022 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, Lawton, Coffman, McCoy Nays: - Absent: La Mastra, Meyer, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA220036 Address: 1010 W Mountain Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Patrick & Lindsey Steele-Idem Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: This is a request to not include ceiling height greater than 7 feet 6 inches on the second story of an accessory building as allowable floor area. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Mountain Ave, between Shields St. and Mack St. The request is to have an accessory building with habitable space, and for the upper story area not count towards the overall allowable floor area for an accessory building. Beals explained that the issue here is that accessory buildings in this zone currently have a limit on floor area – once the ceiling height of the upper story reaches 7.5 feet or more, that floor area counts towards the allowable maximum. If ceiling height is lower that 7.5 feet, it does not count towards floor area. The applicant has received a building permit to build with a ceiling height less than 7.5 feet and can technically build the building now as permitted. The request now is to allow ceiling height to be greater than 7.5 feet. This is a standard that is consistently applied to this type of structure, so granting approval would be a substantial deviation in how the standard is normally applied. Plans submitted show a request to modify the ceiling trusses to create a higher ceiling height than what was originally designed. By so doing, by definition, that floor area increase is almost double the allowable area for that structure. Floor plans show a main floor consisting of shop/garage area, with a second floor made up of habitable space. Beals presented images of the current property, noting the location of driveway off of the street as well as an existing garage structure that is planned to be demolished. Images of the rear yard show where the proposed structure would be built. Commission member Coffman asked if there were any issue with the total allowable floor area for the lot. Beals responded that there did not appear to be any issues but requested that he clarify with staff who reviewed the application as well. Vice-Chair Shuff asked Beals to confirm his understanding that if the ceiling height is maintained under 7.5 feet, floor area does not have to be counted towards the allowable maximum for an accessory building. Beals confirmed this as accurate. Beals noted that the proposed changes in ceiling height are all internal, and no change would be visible to the overall shape/exterior of the building. Commission member Lawton asked Beals to explain the intent of the 7.5-foot height limit. Beals responded that it aligns more with the building code, as far as the building code is concerned about habitable space. The limit helps to keep accessory buildings low, and not become a massive/looming structure in rear yard spaces. Also, it attempts to keep the spaces more oriented toward storage spaces rather than full carriage house-type structures. Commission member McCoy asked for confirmation that the overall height of the building has not changed, merely the internal ceiling height. Beals confirmed that as accurate. DocuSign Envelope ID: EC9F7778-A9F9-4B3B-AF41-0E533B7DA401 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 Minutes - December 8, 2022 Commission member Coffman asked another clarifying question regarding the counting of habitable floor area, asking if the Commission would be considering a variance in the quantity of allowable space? Can we make a variance regarding a definition? Beals commented that the request is not to “count” the space but is instead a request to “exceed” the allowable floor area of standard. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Patrick Steele-Idem, owner of 1010 W Mountain Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Steele-Idem stated that the intention of the space is to be an office space, as both he and his partner are currently working from home and need the extra space to separate their two working spaces. Steele-Idem stated that they have no intention of creating a space that would be used as a rental and have signed documents with the City stating as much. The proposed increase in ceiling height is intended to make the most out of a structure that has already been approved. The increase in ceiling height would have no effect at all on the exterior dimensions, and the applicants don’t believe there would be any impact to the neighborhood. Three neighbors have submitted signed letters expressing their support and/or lack of objections; two of those individuals are present at the hearing. Commission member Lawton asked the applicant if they were involved in the original design of the building; Steele-Idem responded yes. Lawton then asked the applicant if they were ok with the building as originally designed; Steele-Idem stated that it was “contentious”, and they wanted a higher ceiling height to begin with. He described trying to convince himself that the 7.5-foot height would be ok, but after experiencing that height in person, it did not seem like a good long-term solution given the scope and cost of the project. Audience Participation: Audience member Darrell Austin, resident at 1016 W Mountain Ave., addressed the Commission and offered comment. Austin asked Beals to present the aerial view of the property with the block. Austin noted the large structure in the back of his property, which he built. He had to address the issue of the ceiling height as well. Austin noted that no exterior changes are being made; in fact, the applicant is not asking for any changes in the total floor area but is simply being asked to account for it due to the ceiling height being raised. Austin voiced his support for the project, and it’s benefit to the subject property as well as the neighborhood as a whole. This would optimize the investment and value of the subject property. Audience member Ann Stewart, neighbor of the applicant to the east side, stated that she had absolutely no objections to the project and feels that it would add to the character of the neighborhood. Commission Discussion: Commission member Lawton asked Beals to return to the aerial view of the block, asking if the large structure on the South-west corner could be identified for reference. Commission member Coffman identified the building as the Little on Mountain restaurant and adjacent townhomes. Beals also noted that there is a zone district change right at that property, as the zone changes from L-M-N to N-C-L. Beals responded to an earlier question regarding total square footage for the lot after consulting with zoning staff, noting that the proposed structure would put the allowable floor area for the lot over the allowable maximum. Commission member Coffman commented that the proposed change would add quite a bit of calculated floor area; but looking at the change in design it is hard to argue that it is not nominal and inconsequential when the building at its effect on the surrounding neighborhood does not appear to change at all. Commission member Lawton stated that this type of structure appears to be in line with where the city is headed, in allowing more habitable space, multi-family dwellings, carriage houses, etc. This is an area that already has this type of structure. Beyond the code, in actual terms, this isn’t any change in the exterior or visibility to the neighbors. Lawton asked if we have all of the conditions that this variance would be for? Beals stated that allowable square footage for the lot is 3,150 sq ft; this would represent a total area on the lot of 3,502 sq ft. Lawton stated that he feels the request is reasonable, and representative of where the city is headed anyway. DocuSign Envelope ID: EC9F7778-A9F9-4B3B-AF41-0E533B7DA401 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 Minutes - December 8, 2022 Coffman asked if approving this request would turn the structure into a carriage house by code definition? That is more of a distinction of a full dwelling unit with a kitchen. Beals confirmed this as accurate, noting that if a kitchen were to be added in the future it would require a full development review process to turn the structure into a dwelling unit. Vice-Chair Shuff commented that this request was a bit challenging; this is the way the code has been written for a while, and many previous applicants have asked for this variance and been denied. There may be an issue of equity if this request is approved while other similar applications have been denied. Shuff stated that he has a similar building in his own back yard, which has a ceiling height of 7 feet 5 inches, which conforms to code and feels ok. The issue here is more about the strict and equal application of the code, rather than the potential impact to the mass of the structure, which the applicant has shown here would not be changed. As written currently, the code creates a deal wherein a property owner can maintain additional floor space if and when the ceiling height is maintained at the lower height required by code. Commission member McCoy stated his opinion that the change would be insignificant; the exterior of the building has been permitted and is ok. McCoy acknowledged the points made by Shuff, while at the same time felt that it was insignificant given the nature of the neighborhood, which has a number of similar accessory buildings already. Lawton acknowledged the points made by Shuff, stating that this is the reason the Commission exists, to interpret and provide discretion to requests like this. If the code were only to be strictly enforced, there would be no need for the Commission. This request does not appear to have any negative impact on other individuals but is simply at odds with code. Lawton does not have a problem with the request given that there would be no changes to the exterior of the structure; Lawton also noted that the commission needed to be sure to state the variance accurately when putting forth a motion. Shuff posed the question of if the variance was in fact asking for a higher ceiling or was asking for a larger area to be allowed on the lot. Lawton asked if it would in fact be two separate variances. McCoy offered that because the original drawing had a ceiling height below 7 feet 6 inches, the floor space was not originally considered habitable area. Shuff explained that currently, the land use code says that when a ceiling is under 7 feet 6 inches, the corresponding floor area does not have to be counted against the total lot calculation. If the ceiling is higher than allowed, the floor area then technically needs to be accounted for in the total square footage allowed on the lot. Coffman commented that it was hard to see how making the change suddenly does not follow the purpose of the Land Use Code, when it is not changing the use of the building or the lot. It feels a bit like nitpicking – the numbers appear to show a big increase, but the actual effect on the neighborhood and land use appears to be nominal. Shuff alluded to the current status of flux regarding the Land Use Code, and asked Beals how these standards might change in the new codes. Is the intent for the new code to maintain these same provisions and definitions? Beals provided some background, noting that the new code was adopted November 1, 2022; in that time a protest has been filed, and is gathering signatures on order to have Council act by either repealing the code or putting the item to a vote for referendum. In the new code (Land Development Code), it does allow for a carriage house. The standard for what is allowed on the overall lot goes away, and instead we have building forms that dictate how much floor area is allowed in primary structures and accessory dwelling units. What hasn’t gone away is how much floor area is allowed on the rear portion of the lot; this is a means to ensure that ADU are still compatible within the neighborhood. The ADU allowance is 45% of the floor area of the primary building, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is more restrictive. Beals noted that the proposed structure would exceed 1,000 square feet and may not conform under the new code either. Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA220036 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This is supported by the lack of change in the exterior shape of the building, and the effect on neighboring properties. DocuSign Envelope ID: EC9F7778-A9F9-4B3B-AF41-0E533B7DA401 Land Use Review Commission Page 6 Minutes - December 8, 2022 Yeas: Lawton, Coffman, McCoy Nays: Shuff Absent: La Mastra, Meyer, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 9:26am Ian Shuff, Vice-Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: EC9F7778-A9F9-4B3B-AF41-0E533B7DA401 1/20/2023