Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/13/2018Heidi Shuff, Chair Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long Cody Snowdon Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Ken Summers 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 13, 2018 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Long was absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • OTHER BUSINESS Shuff made a motion, seconded by Snowdon to move the Keeping Fort Collins Great Sales Tax presentation to the front of the meeting to accommodate the presenter’s schedule. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Shields, Jackson, Shuff, Bear, Snowdon Nays: None The Motion was approved. Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager with the City of Fort Collins, presented to the board. The Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) sales tax will sunset in December 31, 2020. Currently we have a 2.25% base rate tax that has not been increased in 36 years. We also have a long history of dedicated taxes that are 1/4-cent taxes to support street maintenance, capital improvement, and open space. Plus, the KFCG sales tax of 0.85%, which brings the total local taxes to 3.85%. As soon as the Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) was passed, City Council could no longer raise the tax rate by a Council vote, it must go to voters. There is a history of voter support to pay for the services that our residents want. KFCG is a bundled dedicated tax because by voter approval the money that comes in is divided among many buckets. This fund can also respond to emerging community trends or needs and allows Council to address things that we did not anticipate. If this tax is not renewed in full, then there will need to be some level of service reductions. One of the reasons we are trying to put this in front of the voters in 2019 is because 2020 is the next budget cycle. Council direction to date has been to not go higher than the .85%. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 December 13, 2018 Three scenarios are being presented to move forward. The first scenario is what we have now; they could propose this same option in front of the voters for a specified number of years and ask for a renewal. Another proposal is to support more services, keep the .85% and put it in the base rate. If the base rate increases then that is in perpetuity, we don’t go back to the voters. Some people like the perpetuity, they don’t want to be asked over and over, they want the services. Other people want to revote to ensure accountability with the city. The third option is some amount of increase to the base rate and leave a ¼-cent tax as well. Right now, the ¼-cent tax goes to areas like transportation and transit. We are currently paying for transportation services out of our general fund. Parks and Recreation also comes in here, as parks have a dedicated fund to be built on the development side, but no funds to maintain and replace old infrastructure in those parks. Focus is on an April 2019 election to avoid paying extra money to work with the county. That ballot language has to be referred by the February 5P th P deadline. Boardmember Stockover asked if there are any numbers to show how much we lose to online shopping. Sawyer does not have any data but agrees that our retail landscape has changed. The city is very reliant on sales tax, even in the last 10 years, our residents are subsidizing more and more services. Plus, we are not a shopping destination for surrounding areas anymore. Sawyer is also trying to educate the public on TABOR language. If we go forward with any version of the .85% tax, those ballot initiatives, by law, will have to start with language that says, “by increasing taxes”. She wants to ensure people understand they are not looking to raise our current local tax environment base. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180044 - APPROVED Address: 429 Garfield Street Owner/Petitioner: Shawn McKee Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This variance request is for a deck attached to the rear of the home to encroach 1.43 feet into the required 5-foot west side setback, and 10.97 feet into the required 15 feet east corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This lot is located at the corner of Garfield and Whedbee. The request is for a new deck on the rear of an existing house. The deck will extend the full length of the house, and the house already encroaches both east and west setbacks. This is an interior side lot line. Because it’s a corner lot, the required set back on the corner is 15 feet. The new deck will be covered partially on the west side of deck while the east side remains open. The deck itself is not more than 3 feet in height above grade. The encroachment on the east side will be a platform, not too much above the grade. You won’t see the deck at all from the front of the house. From the east side you may see the covering of the deck, but there is a fence on that side. Boardmember Shuff asked if the deck would still require a variance for the street side if it was under 30 inches. Beals explained that if a permit is required on any work, then the setbacks need to be met. Since this deck attaches to the primary house it does require a permit, despite the grade level. Applicant Presentation: Shawn McKee, 429 Garfield Street, addressed the board. The house is narrow and does encroach on both side setbacks. If the deck was constructed within the setback requirements, the existing door on the rear of the house would not be functional. It’s a long narrow lot, and Mr. McKee is hoping to use the deck as an extension of the home. Boardmember Snowdon inquired as to the placement of the stairs. Mr. McKee confirmed that those stairs are present to be close to the door. However, now the stairs won’t fit either due to the addition of a sidewalk on that side. Those stairs are no longer included in the plans. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 December 13, 2018 Boardmember Bear stated this request seems nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Snowdon agreed, particularly because the deck extends directly behind house, there is nothing adverse to the neighborhood. Boardmember Shuff agreed, the entire east side set back encroachment is a deck, not even visible from the street, doesn’t protrude from the existing house. Jackson made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve ZBA180044, as the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing structure encroaches into both side setbacks, the deck is open on three sides, the deck is only covered on the west side, the large parkway along the west side creates a substantial setback from the street, the deck is less than 3 feet above grade, 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. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Shields, Jackson, Shuff, Bear, Snowdon Nays: None The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA180045 - APPROVED Address: 221 S. Grant Avenue Owner: Walter and Libbie Hickman Petitioners: Keira Harkin, Old Town Designs Inc. Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(C)(D)(2)(a)3 Project Description: The variance request is for a 58 square foot addition to the primary building. The existing floor area in the primary and accessory buildings is 674 square feet over the maximum allowable floor area of 4,274 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. This property is on the corner of West Olive and South Grant. The request is for additional square footage on the rear of the second story of the existing house. This is a fairly large lot, and already exceeds the floor area allowed for the lot based on both primary and accessory buildings. The request is to enclose a second story deck. Since the deck was created, they have had leaking problems in that area. The owners have tried several times to correct the issue, but now their proposed solution is to create a second story addition to tie into the existing roof structure. From the front of the house the addition will not be visible, and there are large trees on the south side of the property to screen the addition. Applicant Presentation: Keira Harkin, 210 East Oak Street, addressed the board. Ms. Harkin has worked with Walter and Libby Hickman for about 13 years on various projects. They have tried to repair the deck twice already. The existing roof structure of the house overflows onto this deck. Also, this is west facing, so severe weather hits this side of the house. One part of the roof on the south side can’t have a gutter that will drain properly. In an effort to prevent water damage in the dining room again, they’d like to enclose the deck and integrate into the existing roof structure. Then they can gutter the whole thing and drain it properly for a permanent solution instead of ongoing maintenance issues. Boardmember Snowdon inquired if there was an option to add a roof with a gutter, but still keep this an outdoor area. Ms. Harkins replied that she did discuss that option with Beals, the issue being that would still leave a lot of exposure to the weather, and possibly not remedy situation. This is the best option for them. Audience Participation: Virginia Murn, 217 S. Grant Avenue, addressed the board. Ms. Murn lives north of the Hickman’s property. She does not see why this variance should be granted when they are already 674 square feet above code. Ms. Murn believes their backyard looks like the Waco compound already. They built a huge 2 story addition on the back that blocks her southern sun and she doesn’t see the need for more space. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 December 13, 2018 Walter Hickman, 221 S. Grant Avenue, addressed the board. He owns the house, and as Ms. Harkin mentioned, they have had several repairs and 2 complete rebuilds of the deck. They discussed the patio option, but it appears it would still not drain properly. The original remodel was 18 years ago, they are hopeful that enclosing the area will fix the issue permanently. Mr. Hickman has discussed this proposal with the neighbor to the south and she had no trouble with it. They are only trying to fix the current problem, not add any square footage. Boardmember Bear asked when the addition was added. Mr. Hickman stated it was part of the original addition in 2001. They have completely redone the top deck twice since then. Bear questioned if there was any solar impact assessment done at that time, since this neighbor has concerns on blocking her sun. Mr. Hickman clarified that Ms. Murn lives on the north side of his property and doesn’t see how this project will affect her sun exposure. Mr. Hickman did speak to the neighbor closest to the addition on the south side, and that neighbor has no issues with the proposal. Boardmember Shields asked for verification that the full footprint of the house is two stories. Ms. Harkin assisted Mr. Hickman in the response. She explained the way the property is positioned; the north side is blocked by the north wall of Mr. Hickman’s house. The area currently being discussed meets solar setback and is blocked by the north side of the house. There is no way to block any sun to the northern neighbor. Ms. Harkin also confirmed the existing home is all 2 story. Board Discussion: Boardmember Stockover stated that he always appreciates input from neighbors. The tree shadows visible in the overhead view lead him to believe that this addition will not affect the neighbor that is in opposition. Square footage is always a valid concern. However, in this case, the damage was done years ago when the addition was built. This is a relatively small addition to fix a significant problem. Boardmember Snowdon asked if this was a covered patio would the square footage count toward the total. Beals stated taking into account recent code changes, the square footage on a covered patio would not count towards the total square footage. Snowdon expressed that it’s nominal to fix an existing condition. Boardmember Shuff agreed, but appreciates the neighbor coming forward. The biggest impact was the previous addition. Right now, they are addressing the small covering of second floor space. Based on information presented, this variance would have a nominal solar impact because the previous addition has already shaped their house. The neighbor to the south is not opposed, and they are more impacted by this variance. Shuff is in support of this variance since it is existing square footage on the first floor, and it’s a remedy to a situation that has been repeatedly problematic. Boardmember Bear stated the only reasoning found is nominal and inconsequential. Bear tends to not find support for that reason. Although this addition is only 58 additional feet, this is already significantly over in square footage. And while it’s just enclosing an existing second story deck, it does change the feel. It’s unfortunate that the first addition created this problem, but she does not believe that plays a role in determining whether it’s nominal and inconsequential. Boardmember Jackson agreed. Going further over in square footage is not nominal and inconsequential. She understands they are trying to fix a problem. Another option is to reduce the square footage on the first floor. Boardmember Shields agreed that a covered porch would not solve the problem. It is unfortunate that they are over in square footage, but that might have occurred before code changes. Boardmember Shuff appreciates everyone’s perspective and valid points. Code would allow them to partially enclose the space with a roof and partial height walls. Simply filling those walls with windows is nominal. This is a small amount of square footage and the difference between completely enclosing it to eliminate the issues of water infiltration would be nominal and inconsequential. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Snowdon, to approve ZBA180045, and find that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the additional 58 square feet is enclosing an existing second story deck, the addition meets setbacks and does not increase the footprint of the existing building, substantial trees on the south side of the property screen the addition from the closest property line, and it covered a roof covering over the existing patio at the second story level to tie in with the existing second floor roof structure would be allowed by code, and therefore in filling those walls would be nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in