Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/09/2018ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held AUGUST 9, 2018 City Council Chambers 300 North Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 609 Juniper Lane, Appeal ZBA180029 Meeting Time: 8:30 AM, August 9, 2018 Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Butch Stockover, Chair Pro Tem Noah Beals Karen Szelei-Jackson Christopher Van Hall Daphne Bear Marcha Hill Cody Snowdon 2 1 CHAIR PRO TEM BUTCH STOCKOVER: Okay, so that moves us to item number four. Could 2 I just have a brief show of hands, who’s here for that one? So, we have a few people. Okay, any 3 questions on the proceedings? You’ll all get a chance to weigh in if needed, or wanted, and we’re ready 4 for the appeal please. 5 MS. MARCHA HILL: Appeal ZBA180029, address 609 Juniper Court, owner Nathaniel Banke, 6 petitioner Mike Hull, OFMC Construction, zoning district RL, code section 4.4(D)(1), project description 7 is: this variance request is for a second-story addition to an existing single-story house in the Low- 8 Density Residential, RL, zone district. The allowable floor area for a 7,537 square foot lot it 2,512 square 9 feet. The request is for an additional 289 square feet of allowable floor area. 10 MR. NOAH BEALS: Alright, so this property is located in the Sheely neighborhood on Juniper 11 Lane…so, it’s the third in from this corner of South Whitcomb and Juniper Lane. It is zoned RL, so this 12 is a little different than our NCL, NCM, NCB zone districts. There’s not a rear area floor area; there’s 13 just an overall lot allowable floor area. In the RL zone district, the requirement is that your lot size be 14 three times greater than the floor area of the building. And so, at this point in time, the proposed addition 15 to the building would exceed that allowable floor area for the lot size that it is. 16 So, this is the site plan that was provided showing the location of the structure and what’s being 17 proposed. The addition…the addition does include an extension onto the rear half of the building, and 18 then also a second-floor addition with attic, or storage space, above that. This is showing the main level 19 and what is happening, and then this is showing the second floor, or upper level. 20 In the RL zone district, we do not include the garage space as part of the floor area…allowable 21 floor area. By definition that is subtracted out; so, there is this…either a large one-car or really small 22 two-car garage…that’s here. That does not count towards that floor area. 23 I showed these also just to show the upper and lower level floor plans…just a little cleaner, a little 24 less lines [sic], to see what’s going on. So, this is the proposed elevations. This one on the left, the front 25 elevation, would be looking from the street. This, again, was a single-story house; they’re proposing to 26 add this second floor and then this storage space that would be above that. This is from the right side 27 showing that, and this right here is where you can see that extension that would be happening on the back 28 of the house. This is from the back, the rear elevation, and then also the other side. 29 These are the pictures that we’ve taken of the existing house. And that is the end of the staff 30 report at this time. 31 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, thank you Noah. Questions? Or should we move on 32 to the applicant? Okay, the applicant please? 33 MR. NATE BANKE: Hello Board, my name is Nate Banke; I’m the owner, along with my wife, 34 of the house in question. Um, we are moving into this house…the plan is for our family to move into this 35 house after the construction is complete. We’re a young family; I have a 4-year-old and a 2-year-old. We 36 are hoping to…our goal is to adopt a couple kids out of foster care here in a couple of years is our hope, 37 and so, we don’t…none of our family are from Colorado, so we have family come to visit, see their 38 grandkids, that kind of thing, older parents. And so, my mother-in-law gave us a construction loan, or 39 gave us a loan to be able to do this for the sake of our growing family. 40 The reason why this got to this…situation…is when we were trying to do the work with the 41 architect, he believed we were within the City codes. We were having some troubles because of this 42 unique zoning, as I understand…it’s unique for the city. But we made a floorplan work, and then we 3 1 came to realize that there’s…I believe you can see, but there’s a little open-air space between the first and 2 the second story above part of the living room, and that…apparently, by the City Code…you guys of 3 course know better…but, is counted as floor space, and so that put us over what we thought…where we 4 were at. 5 So, we’re just trying to, you know, follow the rules here, figure out a way that we can make this 6 work for our growing family. We personally don’t believe there’s any significant difference between 7 what would be to Code and this floorplan…from just our unprofessional opinion. Yeah…I think that’s 8 basically it. This is…we’re just looking to start this construction and move into this house with our 9 family at the end. And, I know there’s been…our neighborhood…the Next Door site and stuff has sent 10 some information out. I personally think there might be some misunderstanding with some of our 11 neighbors, so I don’t know if it’s appropriate, but after our neighbors speak, we’d be happy to address any 12 issues or misconceptions if at all appropriate, but you guys can direct that. Any questions at this time? 13 BOARDMEMBER DAPHNE BEAR: Hi; can you help be better understand your comment 14 around the heightened living room? 15 MR. BANKE: So, we’re adding a second story, in theory. That second story included some 16 open-air space…just the ceiling, if it was over 14 feet, as I understand, what I’ve been told by the…our 17 contractor and such. If this ceiling is over 14 feet, this room would be considered two stories. Now, even 18 though it’s open air, it still would be counted in City Code as floor space. So, the original architectural 19 design that we have, and that you see here…if you did not count the two-story open-air space as floor 20 space, but just one-story space, we would be to code as I understand it. But, because the second story…or 21 because the ceiling goes over 14 feet to 18 feet with the two stories, it is counted by the City Code as 22 floor space on the second floor. Is that…does that make sense? 23 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Yes, thank you. 24 MR. BANKE: Okay, thank you. 25 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Questions at this point? Of staff or the applicant? Okay… 26 BOARDMEMBER KAREN SZELEI-JACKSON: Can I ask a quick question for, sorry, the 27 applicant? For the storage area up in the attic, is that…is there a stair going up to that space or is it just… 28 MR. BANKE: We’ll have a ladder…I don’t know, one of those pull-down ladder ones. I think 29 that’s on the floorplan somewhere. It’s a little convoluted at this size, but, yeah, there’s no walkable 30 stairs, it’s just one of those pull-downs. 31 BOARDMEMBER JACKSON: Okay, thank you. 32 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Yeah, Noah, does that count as floor space, attic space? 33 MR. BEALS: Um… 34 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: I can’t remember on that. 35 MR. BEALS: So, we’re in the RL zone district, and so that’s a different definition than NCL, 36 NCB, and NCM. And, in the RL, that does not count…so, I’ve been trying to run the calculations here of 37 what that would be. It’d still be over, but not as much as what we have presented here today. 38 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: I don’t follow what you’re saying. 4 1 MR. BEALS: So, if we… 2 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: But my question was for the attic space. 3 MR. BEALS: Oh, okay. So, I was talking about the ceiling height. 4 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Right. 5 MR. BEALS: The 14-foot ceiling height. That applies in the NCM, NCL, NCB. And so, running 6 the calculations on not including that, they are still over approximately about 30 square feet over…or, I’m 7 sorry, about 60 square feet over. And so, there’s still a need for the variance request… 8 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: If they lowered that ceiling height… 9 MR. BEALS: Yeah…if they had included a full second floor over that vaulted area. 10 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay. 11 BOARDMEMBER CODY SNOWDON: So, a third of the request…over a third of the request? 12 MR. BEALS: Right. 13 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: So… 14 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Can I clarify? So, you’re saying that because it’s the RL zoning 15 district, the vaulted space would not count in the floor… 16 MR. BEALS: The vaulted space doesn’t count as twice. 17 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Doesn’t count twice…it just counts once, and based on some quick 18 math, that would leave this variance request at a 60 square foot… 19 MR. BEALS: Correct. 20 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: …overage. And would that, in any way, change the staff 21 recommendation? 22 MR. BEALS: I don’t believe so at this point in looking…what we based on the context of the 23 neighborhood. 24 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay, thank you. 25 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: So, just one comment. I was on the Planning and Zoning 26 Board when we talked a lot about this…what counts and what doesn’t count. And a lot of discussion 27 went into this; it’s not something that just kind of happened. And the whole issue was about height, you 28 know…being able to take a structure and push it up and not have the floor area count because of your 29 ceiling height. And I don’t know that we need to get into that, but it wasn’t just a whimsical 30 ordinance…or requirement that was put into the code book…a lot of input from staff and neighborhood 31 groups and that went into that. 32 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: May I ask the applicant a question please? 33 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Of course. And everyone will still get time to speak. 34 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Hi…so, based on what you just heard, would you find any 35 opportunity to modify your plans to reduce it by 60 square feet so you would not need a variance request? 5 1 MR. BANKE: So…okay, so that’s new information to me. So, we’re just talking 60 square feet? 2 So, I mean, if we could, I would. The question I suppose is…what it would take for the architect…how 3 easy that is to do that. I’m not sure…can you… 4 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Would this be something you’d be willing to table until you could 5 perhaps gather some additional information and we could clarify these numbers, so we make sure that 6 we’re, you know, really looking at this, you know, with great integrity. 7 MR. BANKE: The challenge for us…it’s going to create undue hardship for our family at this 8 point. We rent a house; we’re on a tight timeline based on what, originally, the architect and the 9 contractor thought we could do. We’ll need to move out of that house at that point. And, the original 10 plan, when we thought we had all this in the clear, was to start like a month ago, so we’re already a month 11 behind. And they’re set up to start next week if you guys permit. So, if it is at all possible, we would 12 truly rather get the approval now and move forward with that. Of course, if you guys deem that this is not 13 an acceptable plan, then of course we would then have to deal with that. But, it would create a hardship 14 for our family in trying to work out where we’re going to live… 15 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay…I just thought I would ask if that was an option for you. 16 MR. BANKE: I understand…absolutely. 17 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: I really think we should hear from the audience as well. 18 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Well, I just thought…yeah, okay…I just… 19 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Even if we tabled it, I’d like to hear from the audience, so we 20 know what their feelings are, because they’re the most affected. Noah? 21 MR. BEALS: Sorry…if you’re going to the audience, I do have some letters I can read first? 22 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Yes, I don’t want to skip those. 23 MR. BEALS: And then, just seeing the numbers that we have, you may think about if you want to 24 limit audience participation to a certain timeframe…but, your call. I’ll read the letters and you can think 25 about that. 26 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: I don’t know about you guys, but I have all day. 27 MR. BEALS: Alright, so the first one. Ross, unfortunately, we will not be in town until the City 28 Council talks about the variance allowing 609 Juniper Lane, in Sheely Addition, which would allow them 29 to greatly expand their Airbnb home to two floors. These people have proven themselves to be unworthy 30 of adding to their rental home for a variety of reasons. They have run ministries out of this house, as well 31 as Airbnb and VRBO rentals, including looking by term rentals for construction workers. They claim 32 they wish to grow the house so they can live in it, yet have shown little interest in actually moving into 33 the house. They have created immense dissent in the neighborhood. I sincerely believe they are lying 34 about wishing to live in the house. They find it a cash cow and want to increase their income. Thanks for 35 listening, Kate Forgach. 36 Next letter. Sir, I would like to make some comments on the aforementioned appeal. The request 37 for additional living space above the Land Use Code does not appear to meet any of the requirements for 38 a variance. First, I don’t see any special consideration needed to add a story to the existing building. The 39 floorplans indicate an entire suite being built on the east of the house. By doing that, a self-imposed 6 1 condition is present. Second, a floorplan for adding addition bedrooms would serve the homeowner as 2 well as the proposed addition. Third, the building would deviate from the current buildings in the Sheely 3 Addition as there is only one 2-story home in the Sheely Addition, which is located two doors to the west. 4 This is a half-floor on the upper floor, which makes for a lower façade on the street. There are 2-story 5 homes in adjacent filings, but lot size and street sizes provide for more open neighborhood. My 6 conclusion is that the request does not meet the requirements set forth for appeal. 7 This request for a modification of the Land Use Code has opened a wider discussion about this 8 property and its owner. Mr. Banke has a short-term rental license, which was grandfathered in at the 9 area…which was grandfathered in as the area does not allow such use. The floorplans seem to indicate a 10 separate suite in the main floorplan that could be used for a short-term rental. There are problems 11 currently at the house due to the resident parking permit system as the most common use is six to ten 12 persons, and four to eight cars at the house. This will continue as there is no parking for such an activity. 13 Second, he operates a devotional group from his current residence at 1613 Sheely Drive. This has the 14 effect of a business being operated in the home, and as such, can be seen to continue at 609 Juniper. This 15 has resulted in parking problems and noise complaints at his current residence two blocks to the west. 16 While this is not in the scope of the appeal, it is a concern for the people living in the Sheely 17 neighborhood. Sincerely, Paul Lebsack. 18 The third one I received this morning. Hi, I am a property owner in the Sheely Addition and 19 would like to express my opinion regarding the property at 609 Juniper Lane. I understand there is to be a 20 hearing on the morning of August 9th. I am not able to attend; however, I want to register my strong 21 opposition to the expansion and the use of the property as a bed and breakfast. I urge you to vote no on 22 the variance for this property. All the neighbors I have been in contact with are opposed to the variance. 23 Casey Thomas, 1916 Sheely Drive. 24 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, so now we’re ready for audience participation. I have 25 all day, but staff is, like they say, overworked and underpaid, and we are pretty good listeners. So, if 26 you’re going to repeat what someone else has said, just say ditto and we’ll get it. But, I’m not going to 27 limit you to time. So, please just use your time wisely. And, come to the microphone as you please, and 28 be sure and sign in your name and address for the record please. 29 MS. BOBBI POKORA: Good morning Board, my name is Bobbi Pokora; I live at 1604 Sheely 30 Drive. Well, the letters that you read pretty much address all the concerns that we have. First of all, they 31 did not even present a hardship whatsoever. This is detrimental to the public good. Their home, when 32 they purchased it, was a 3-bedroom home, one bath. They do have two children. The mother-in-law 33 comes out quite often to help take care of these children; however, she states over and over that they 34 shouldn’t have had the kids, they shouldn’t have got a dog, because animal control picks up this dog 35 several times a week. If not, the neighbors have the dog in their yard until somebody comes home to get 36 it. So, running foster care system out of the home, I don’t buy it. 37 So, third, I think that the third-floor space should actually be counted as floor space, because right 38 now, their devotional group that they’ve run from their home is supposed to be a youth group through 39 CSU…talking to CSU, they have nothing to do with them. And they do have many extra people always 40 spending the night at their home. Code enforcement, unfortunately, hasn’t been able to get too much 41 evidence against it because most of them either ride up on skateboards or on their bicycles. However, the 42 landlord…this is why their lease is going to be terminated at the end of this term. The landlord is tired of 43 having to deal with the issues, deal with law enforcement, deal with Code enforcement, and everything 44 else. So, when they do have baptisms out of this house, there’s anywhere between a hundred and two 7 1 hundred people here at a time. It goes past midnight, there’s plenty of noise, people park on our lawns, 2 breaking our sprinkler systems, never mind the Airbnb out of 609 Juniper currently. 3 With the Airbnb, they have on there that it sleeps ten. I notice that the garage square footage also 4 does not count; however, the garage is finished, and it’s run as a bunkhouse. So, there’s ten workers in 5 609 Juniper all the time. So, there’s always parking issues, noise issues, at both properties. Now, them 6 adding on a second story is just not feasible, because if you look at every house on that street, they are all 7 single-story houses. The floorplan, if you go to slide 26, you’ll see that they have a whole additional suite 8 to the left side. There’s a separate entrance, living room, bathroom, kitchen, and bedroom. And you can 9 follow the wall line. So, they have full intentions on still running an Airbnb out of this house. If you go 10 to slide 28, you can see the elevation plan where it says storage space…the storage space is a third floor. 11 Now, if you look at the permit on-line, it says third-floor loft sleeping area. They have full intentions on 12 still running the same kind of business out of this house that they do at 1613 Sheely Drive. Much 13 overcrowding and much problems for the neighborhood. So, we would like to have this denied to make 14 the problems…kind of keep it to a minimum. Thank you. 15 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir. 16 MR. FRANK JOHNSON: Morning; I’m Frank Johnson, I live at 700 Birky Place, which is on the 17 back side of this property, two houses down. We’re on the back fence…we’re really the second house 18 down on Birky. The elephant in the room in this case, which the petitioners have not mentioned, is the 19 Airbnb use of this house, which causes, in my opinion, all the problems. Noise from this house is 20 significantly greater and more frequent now since the Airbnb was permitted not long ago. It’s especially 21 bad on event days, games at the stadium, festivals in town, beer events…all over northern Colorado…that 22 those people go to. There’s no limit, as I understand it, on the number of people that can use this Airbnb 23 house, since it’s a short-term rental. The groups, based on my conversation with people that are staying 24 there, is that this house is generating $400 a night on occasion, and maybe more. Groups are using busses 25 or vans to go from this house to these events all over Fort Collins and northern Colorado. People are 26 partying in this house from noon on, until late into the night. Noise is especially bad from the back porch 27 of 609 as it exists now. It bleeds into our back porch a lot, and into our bedroom windows which are all 28 on that side. I don’t know how many feet that is…the second lot over. It’s much worse for our tenants. I 29 have a rental next door to this house, at 615 Juniper. It’s much worse for those tenants; their bedrooms 30 are on the side of this house very near that back porch. We’ve tried to be patient with it, but we have 31 called the police after 11 o’clock, and they have issued citations at this house. 32 I fear that we’re going to have much bigger problems if this variance is granted. The house is, as 33 you can see, is going to be more than 200% larger…that means more renters at a time. And, from what I 34 just heard, I didn’t know it, but we’ve got…I knew that we had construction workers there this summer; I 35 didn’t know the number. But, I know it far exceeds the two plus one unrelated that they’d be limited to if 36 it wasn’t an Airbnb. Bigger parties…I think the noise is going to be exponentially greater if we…if you 37 allow this and double the size of this Airbnb. I think it’ll be more of a cash cow, as somebody mentioned 38 in a letter, and party house than it is now. I think their rental price could double if they double the house. 39 I think you’re looking at a rental price of $800 a night. It’s a bad situation for us, for our tenants next 40 door, for the entire neighborhood, if this variance is approved, and I would urge you to deny this variance 41 request. Thank you. 42 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Thank you for your input. Awkward silence. Okay, next 43 please. And if you’d remember to sign in. 8 1 MS. DEBRA APPLIN: Right, my name is Debra Applin; I live at 1608 Sheely Drive, and so I 2 can verify everything that Bobbi said previously about the youth ministry. It is large…and it goes on at 3 least once a week, and sometimes a couple. My husband calls the parking people all the time because 4 they’re parked there during restricted hours, and they don’t get tickets; I’m not sure why. Anyway, my 5 concern is, they say they’re going to live there, but there’s nothing to stop them from doing this addition 6 and then continue using it as an Airbnb. So, I would…I don’t think it’s within your purview, but I think 7 the neighborhood would be happy if the Airbnb went away and then it could be a family home, and you 8 know, there’s still problems with the ministry, but we would have other ways to address that. And, it is a 9 hardship on the neighborhood. And, I think, from the street, it’s going to look so much bigger than all the 10 other houses around it. And I guess that is just about all I have to say. So, I think it’s…you know, they 11 say they want to live there, maybe something else will come up and then they have this big, huge thing, 12 and then it’s going to be an enormous Airbnb. So, I’m really concerned about that. And plus, the size of 13 the whole house versus the rest of the street…it’s way out of scale. Thank you. 14 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Thank you for your input. Anyone else for or against? 15 MR. BRENT KISER: Hello, my name is Brent Kiser; I want to speak in favor of Nate and 16 Lindsey Banke in this addition. I want to speak to their character, first of all, their integrity as 17 individuals. I work with them full time. I have worked with Nate and Lindsey for the past seven years, 18 and I have a very close relationship with them. My family is very close with them. I want to speak about 19 just their conduct as individuals. They have the greatest integrity of any individuals that I personally 20 know. They have never told a lie in my entire time knowing them. They’ve never tried to conceal truth; 21 they have walked with total respect and total integrity in all their conduct. As employers, as my bosses, 22 they have treated me, as an employee, with total integrity. I’ve never felt misguided by them, I’ve never 23 felt that they have tried to mislead me. They are not, in fact, seeking monetary gain for greed as has been 24 suggested here this morning; that is simply false. 25 I want to also speak to the…just some of the allegations that have been brought before them that 26 are just simply false. The fact that they intend to move into this home, I can verify. I know them 27 personally, I know that that is their plan, that has been their plan since they first drew up the draft for the 28 architect…the architecture of the new home. Or, excuse me, for the addition to the home. Their plan has 29 been, from the beginning, and they’ve made it known to me and my wife, that they would move into this 30 property, that they would no longer use it as a vacation rental, which is true, they are currently using it 31 as…but that will cease once this addition would be built, they would then move into it. So, I can verify 32 that that is, in fact, the case. The fears that have been brought up about whether this would remain a 33 vacation rental are simply false. 34 And then I want to also just speak to the use of the property…everything that they have done in 35 terms of ministry, which is…so I work with them. It’s a campus ministry with Colorado State University. 36 We are registered with the University, so earlier it was mentioned that the University has no knowings 37 [sic] of our dealings; that is incorrect. We are registered with the University as a student organization. 38 The things that they do in their home, bible studies, just simply having students in their home, are 39 completely within the boundaries of a residential home. It is used as a home, and so it completely falls 40 within the purview of a house. To suggest that it is wrong or indecent to have people into your home is, 41 simply put, a bit ridiculous. And so, I just wanted to just speak to that…that they are…yeah, they are 42 people that are totally trustworthy to do everything with a clear conscience. They work with standards 43 and rules, and they are wanting to comply with rules. They are in no way individuals who are trying to 44 deviate from ordinances. 9 1 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, we hear you. 2 MR. KISER: Thank you. 3 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: We’re getting way outside our purview on this one. It’s 4 getting very emotional, and we’re looking at strict interpretation of the Code, so keep that in mind. I do 5 want to hear from anybody, but just keep that in mind please. 6 MR. MIKE HULL: My name is Mike Hull; I’m the contractor that they want to use on this 7 project, and I want to address a couple of things. The lady that was talking about the third floor…these 8 are bonus trusses so that they have attic space up there. These are not rooms up there; it is just…rather 9 than build a truss with a purlin on it, it has a small open area of a few feet so you can store things up 10 there. It has a ladder going to it, so it is not a third floor. We started this project, came and talked to 11 Noah and his office, trying to find the best way to do this. This subdivision was plotted, I believe, in the 12 ‘50’s, and it has a rule on it that is contrary to the standard setbacks for Fort Collins. So, we had started 13 out with a different plan and adjusted to this so that we would not have to go through a procedure to 14 remove that lot from the subdivision and replot that lot. This footprint really will not be any bigger than 15 several of the other houses in that neighborhood. It will not exceed the height standards for that 16 neighborhood, okay? 17 They have used this as a rental while they’ve lived down the street, but every indication I have is 18 that we are building this for them with their personal input to what they want in this house for the things 19 that I have seen their rental house. So, that’s the information I have about it. And, I guess that’s it. 20 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay…and you remembered to sign in, good job. How many 21 more people want to speak? Just one? You only get one turn…if I open it up for you, I have to open it up 22 for everyone. 23 MR. PHIL SIEFKEN: My name is Phil Siefken, I live at 1808 South Whitcomb Street. My 24 family has lived in the neighborhood since 1965. I care very deeply about the character of the 25 neighborhood. The houses nearest Prospect, the first few blocks, are all pretty much 1950’s ranch-style 26 homes. The second…if you go down another block, it’s 1960’s one, some two stories. You go down to 27 Wallenberg, and those houses are…the plan that they’ve shown would fit in that section, the Wallenberg 28 section, much better. I feel that this really disrupts the flow and integrity and the character of the 29 neighborhood. I envision myself growing old in the neighborhood, just like all four of my grandparents 30 did before me, and I fear that this would jeopardize the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. 31 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: And your name again? I’m sorry. 32 MR. SIEFKEN: Phil Siefken. 33 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, so you don’t live in the neighborhood, but you have 34 family that does? 35 MR. SIEFKEN: I do live in the neighborhood; I live at 1808 South Whitcomb. 36 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, Whitcomb was throwing me. Alright, so we’re going 37 to move into Board discussion now, but before we do that, we’re going to take a really quick bathroom 38 break. Anyone in the audience who needs a bathroom break, they’re across the hall. 39 (**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 10 1 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Did we lose anybody in the audience? No, I don’t think so. 2 So, we’re going to restart…resume. At this point, we allow the applicant to address some of the concerns, 3 or a rebuttal. If you would choose to, please step forward and… 4 MR. BANKE: I’ll try to keep it brief. Yeah, we are planning on moving there; I don’t know if 5 there’s anything that I can add that hasn’t already been articulated. We have run a VRBO; the 6 neighborhood hasn’t liked it. I do understand the issues with how that is in neighborhoods and stuff. 7 Whenever there have been complaints they’ve sent to the City, we’ve never had…the City has never 8 found issue with us or with our compliance with the City regulations. We were grandfathered because we 9 always were following those rules; I know that has nothing to do with your guys’ direct purview. But, the 10 issues that we’ve had a Sheely as well with our ministry and stuff…we have had a number of complaints, 11 we’ve had police called for activities, we’ve had complaints that we had more than us…us plus one in 12 there. The City has never found an issue. Police, when called, have never disbanded a party of ours, or a 13 hangout of ours, because the noise wasn’t loud enough, or we were not breaking any code. 14 So, I do understand that we aren’t what the neighborhood would ideally enjoy, or some of our 15 neighbors at least would like. I do understand we kind of get mixed in with the stadium and a lot of other 16 things because we do work with University students and there is some hostility there with the University 17 expanding. However, I would just ask that we…we have been trying, we are trying. I think our record on 18 paper does show that we do follow compliance with the City to the best of our ability. We’re looking 19 here just for a small variance. Either case, we are going to be building this with the same height, and, for 20 the most part, an insignificant change in square footage from the neighborhood’s perspective. So, I do 21 empathize with their concerns, but we are going to be able to do this for code to a lever that I don’t think 22 is going to change their concerns with us, and we’ll do our best to try to keep our relationship, dialogue, 23 going on. But, we are planning on moving in there. So, unless there’s any other specific questions you 24 guys would like to ask…I’m happy to address those. 25 We do…I mean, I think there are a number of examples, actually, around the neighborhood. I 26 didn’t mention that before, but that do show…one of the guys did say, yes, right next to us, the houses are 27 smaller, but in the neighborhood, in Sheely, there are a number of houses that are larger, and I believe 28 must have gotten variance approvals before. I’m thinking like 1908 Sheely, as well as a number that 29 seem to be far larger than what their plot size would allow. Okay, well, yeah, I don’t know…it’s in the 30 Sheely neighborhood, I assume it would fall under some kind of the same thing. So, I feel like there’s 31 some precedence to it. But, that’s just from my perspective. Any questions, or I can let you guys move 32 on… 33 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Questions? 34 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Yeah, I’ve got one. It was mentioned that the existing garage is 35 fully finished. Is that going to be used for garage, or is that going to be used for living space? 36 MR. BANKE: Yeah, so it was 1950’s, one car. It did get converted into kind of a bedroom, 37 living space thing, whatever. It’s going to be…part of that is going to be brought in as part of the garage, 38 so we…because we’re trying to keep from the sidewalk with the code there, so part of the garage in this 39 addition would be pressed into the old garage space. So, a little bit of it would be used as the kitchen in 40 that corner there. But…because we don’t currently have a dining area, so that’s part of what we’re 41 expanding is having a little dining area there too. But yeah, part of it would be. 42 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: But that area that’s being used for dining is in your calculations 43 for…? 11 1 MR. BANKE: Yes, yes, yeah… 2 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: And that’s true, Noah? 3 MR. BEALS: I didn’t…I don’t think I included that. I see it as garage space, and so… 4 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Go to slide 26. 5 MR. BEALS: So, I minused [sic] from here to here. 6 MR. BANKE: Correct, and that’s just going to be garage in the new plan. Behind that was 7 also…a little bit of that was originally garage as well, but that was counted…or as we had calculated. 8 MR. BEALS: So, if this is the area he’s saying that is expanding into it…I did include that in the 9 calculation. I minused [sic] this from the calculation. 10 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: And your plans are to use that as a garage? 11 MR. BANKE: Yes, or storage. My wife and I always debate what a garage is used for…car or 12 boxes, but yeah. 13 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Anything else, any more questions? Okay, we’re going to 14 move into Board discussion. So, I have a couple questions of staff I’d like to start with. And, of counsel 15 as well. The grandfathering of the VRBO…can you give me a quick run down on that? 16 MR. BEALS: Yes, so just recently the City has adopted what we call short-term rental 17 regulations. Prior to that, there were not regulations and somebody could operate a short-term rental 18 really anywhere in the city as long as they were paying their sales tax, that was considered to be okay. 19 After the short-term rental regulations went in, this neighborhood was not included to be an area that 20 allows for…we have two categories, a primary or a non-primary short-term rental. This neighborhood is 21 zoned RL, and the RL zone district was not included to allow either the non-primary or primary short- 22 term rental. However, because they were operating prior to the regulation, they were allowed to apply for 23 an application within a certain timeframe of the approval of those new standards, and then would 24 be…what is called grandfathered in, until a time the application ceased, or they didn’t renew it. And then, 25 if they tried to apply for it again, they would not be…if there was a lapse of them not using it from the 26 expiration of their application. 27 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, my next question is for you and counsel. If we were to 28 approve this, and I’m not saying we would, would we be able to stipulate that that license would be then 29 null and void, because of basic change of use. 30 MR. BEALS: I mean, this is not a change of use; this is just an expansion of the structure. 31 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: In my mind, it’s a change of use from a rental to a residence, 32 and they’re asking for an increase of square footage, and we put conditions on all the time. Would we be 33 able to put the condition on that it no longer qualifies as a VRBO or Airbnb? 34 MR. BEALS: I’m going to turn to legal on that question. 35 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER VAN HALL: Give me one second to pull up 36 the Code. If you have other questions, you can ask them and I’ll look into that one… 37 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay, moving forward. I’m somewhat versed in the home 38 occupation. Is ministry considered a home occupation? And the reason I ask that is because one 12 1 gentleman said he is employed by them. So, if they have employees in the home, is that a…considered a 2 home occupation, and then how would that affect parking? 3 MR. BEALS: I don’t…let me look at the Code real fast. I don’t know… 4 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: See, I’m not the only one who doesn’t know the answers. 5 MR. BEALS: If a home occupation does include a place of worship. 6 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Marcha knows everything. 7 MR. VAN HALL: And as an answer to your other question, what I would say is that the short- 8 term rental licenses have their own terms and conditions to follow, and so I would suggest not going into 9 those and just sticking to whether or not the addition meets your criteria and standards, because the short- 10 term rental would be governed by that section of the Code. And the application is just for the addition. 11 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: So, what you’re saying is…and most of my experience is pre- 12 VRBO…that they could then continue to rent out the suite as it’s drawn with the outside entrance and 13 such? 14 MR. BEALS: So, you can divide your house with as many walls as you want. What they can’t do 15 is have a second kitchen. And so they wouldn’t be allowed any cooking appliances in that area as a 16 second kitchen. 17 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Because typically overnight renters go to restaurants…yeah. 18 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Doesn’t this main floor level show two kitchens in it? 19 MR. BEALS: Right, but they have not received a building permit for that, and that’d be one of 20 the stipulations of the building permit. We’d say no cooking appliances in that area. 21 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Okay, because currently as it’s shown… 22 MR. BEALS: Or in one of those kitchen areas. 23 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Or what we’re approving, or not approving, today, shows two 24 kitchens. 25 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: But we aren’t reviewing that, we’re just reviewing the square 26 footage, but that’s a good catch. The intent, the use, is not our purview. And that’s where we’re walking 27 a fine line as a Board here. There’s so much emotion going on, but so little of what has been presented is 28 within our purview. Would that be an accurate statement? 29 MR. VAN HALL: Yes; you’re just looking at whether or not the addition meets the standards of a 30 variance. 31 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay. 32 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And to that point, are we in group…Board discussion? 33 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Yes, we are. 34 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: To that point, I’d really like to focus this, because we have…as a 35 policy person, right, I’m coming at it from my… 13 1 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Before you get started, we are still waiting for the one answer 2 on the home occupation. But, hold that thought. 3 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay. 4 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Because that was important to me, was the home occupation. 5 MR. BEALS: So, it does not appear that a place of worship is limited from…prohibited from a 6 home occupation. 7 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: But is it considered a home occupation? If they’re doing a 8 ministry out of that house, and they have employees, would they need to apply for a home occupation 9 permit? And then, with that, would they need to meet the parking ability for those employees. 10 MR. BEALS: If they’re running a business, non-profit or profit, from the home, then a home 11 occupation license is required if that business is not prohibited from the home occupation. They…if they 12 have an outside employee, they would need to provide at least one additional parking space above the 13 minimum that is required for the residential use. 14 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: And can you use a driveway for a parking space? 15 MR. BEALS: But, at the same time, if they’re not running the business over, and they’re just 16 having friends over, that’s…that’s… 17 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: It’s kind of a grey area, but he said he’s employed by them. 18 MR. BEALS: And I don’t know if they…someplace else. 19 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: I’m looking to future ability for neighbors to make sure 20 they’re in compliance. Okay…I’ll move on from that one. 21 MR. VAN HALL: I would just say, I would advise then that’s something…if you approve the 22 use, however it was used, that’s something Zoning or Code could follow up on…complaints of how that 23 use is actually being governed. So, if there are concerns of that, that’s something Noah or Code could 24 follow-up with. 25 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Okay. Do we have the two guys in black shirts…are they 26 here for this, or just… 27 MR. BEALS: They were here if any questions came up for Code Compliance, and there’s 28 actually three, one in a white shirt too. 29 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Black and white, I like it. Old school black and white are 30 here; I feel better. Back to you. 31 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So, I think this conversation is getting way too broad. I think we’re 32 talking about all this peripheral stuff that’s not relevant to the appeal request, which is, are we going to 33 grant a variance request for…for the additional square feet? And, apart from all the emotion and all of 34 that, we have to go to the criteria. And, first and foremost is, the granting of the variance would not be 35 detrimental to the public good. So, I’m going to set that aside for the moment, because in addition to that, 36 it has to be…there has to be a hardship reason, which I have not identified, nor has the applicant 37 submitted any hardship. The other criteria is equal or better than, right, and if…if we’re talking about 60 38 square feet, we can’t say that this would be…I mean, they could easily adjust…it’s not equal or better 14 1 than if they can comply with the Code within 60 square feet. And nominal and inconsequential…based 2 on the character of the neighborhood, it does not appear to be nominal and inconsequential. So, whether I 3 find behavior acceptable or not acceptable, it’s like, it’s irrelevant to this conversation. It does…I don’t 4 see…help me understand how it meets any of these criteria? I’m not seeing it. So, we’re having all these 5 discussions about all this stuff, but I’m…I just need somebody to focus me and tell me what criteria is it 6 meeting here, because I’m not seeing it. 7 BOARDMEMBER JACKSON: I’m going to agree with you. I’ve been looking specifically for 8 the unique hardship, and I don’t see anything listed here that lists a unique hardship. The other thing I 9 was looking for is people keep saying that it’s not in context with the neighborhood, but I haven’t seen 10 any evidence or photos…I’m familiar with the neighborhood, but not being familiar with the 11 neighborhood, I haven’t seen any evidence telling me whether it is actually, or isn’t, in context with the 12 neighborhood. So, I would have to go with the fact that there’s no unique hardship in this situation, and if 13 the applicant can try to comply with the regulations of the Land Use Code, then that would be the way I 14 would lean. 15 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And all that aside, we still have the issue of detrimental to the public 16 good, which, you know, is a subjective assessment. But, I think that the public has come here and stated 17 that this would be detrimental to their public good. And whether or not we come to the same conclusion, 18 I think, you know, that has been clearly stated by members of the public. But even apart from that, I 19 still…I can’t find a hardship, I can’t support it as equal to or better than, and I can’t claim it’s nominal 20 and inconsequential. So, I cannot recommend approval, and I would actually recommend denial unless 21 somebody can help me focus on how it meets these criteria. 22 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Thank you for that. Um, I love people that just bring it all 23 together and state how they feel, and I think you summed it up very well. The reason I was going towards 24 the VRBO and the in-home occupation…I just think these are things that both the applicant and the 25 neighborhood should be aware of, what their avenue of pursuing…complaints in the future. If we deny it, 26 they more than likely will do a quick redesign, but you know, they’re so close as it is…the neighborhood, 27 most likely in my opinion, will get something very similar to this. 28 The difference in this one then…a lot of the other ones we’ve seen, and I’m not trying to call 29 anybody out, but we always have a much easier time approving variances when the neighbors have been 30 well-informed and have written letters of support. And, everything is subjective, and I would agree, we 31 really haven’t established a hardship. On an almost new construction like this, there’s so much going on 32 that’s new, it’s hard to say a hardship because of some unique situation in a neighborhood. That 33 neighborhood has existed for a long time, and I really don’t see a…like I said, this second floor was 34 really…that code was put in place so that we didn’t build really tall structures with a lot of air looming 35 over the neighbors. So, I’m in agreeance with you. I don’t find a hardship here. 36 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I’m not trying to make any subjective assessments of whether what 37 they’re doing is appropriate or not appropriate, I just have to be able to support one of these criteria, and I 38 can’t do it. I just can’t do it. 39 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: I was just supporting the Code a little bit…why that open air 40 reason is there. 41 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So, I’m going to move to recommend denial of Appeal ZBA180029 42 because I have not been able to identify a hardship reason, support for this proposal as equal to or better 15 1 than, or any support that it’s nominal and inconsequential. And so, for those reasons, I cannot find 2 support for this and I recommend denial. 3 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Second. 4 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Any further discussion? Roll call please. So, a yes is a vote 5 for denial, just to be clear. 6 MR. VAN HALL: And just to clarify, to sort of reword what you said, you just feel that they have 7 not met any of the standards to prove a variance? 8 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Yeah, do you want me to state that? 9 MR. VAN HALL: Yes, please. 10 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay. I do not find that they have met any criteria…is that what you 11 said? Conditions to approve the variance…I do not find any of the conditions met that are required to 12 approve the variance. 13 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Second that. 14 MS. HILL: Okay. Bear? 15 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Yes. 16 MS. HILL: Snowdon? 17 BOARDMEMBER SNOWDON: Yes. 18 MS. HILL: Stockover? 19 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: Yes. 20 MS. HILL: Jackson? 21 BOARDMEMBER JACKSON: Yes. 22 CHAIR PRO TEM STOCKOVER: So, that appeal has been denied. Thank you all for your time.