Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/2018 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingHeidi 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 SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180021 Address: 216 N. College Avenue Owner: 216 N. College LLC Petitioners: Gast Johnson & Muffly, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Brinkman Construction & Lamar Advertising Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.1(D)(3) Project Description: This is a notice for rehearing pursuant to City Code Section 2-51(2). This request is to not have existing off-premise signage be included in the total of allowable signage for the property, leaving the available sign allowance for new tenants of the building. The maximum sign allowance for the property is 636 square feet. Existing off premise signage includes 1,200 square feet. The request would result in 1,836 square feet of possible signage on the property. 2. APPEAL ZBA180031 Address: 4424 Denrose Ct Owner: Archland Property LLC Petitioner: James Borgel, Holland and Hart Zoning District: CG Code Section: 3.8.7.1(A)(3)(c) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 September 13, 2018 Project Description: This request is to extend the seven-year period of time in which a nonconforming sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits, has to comply with the City's regulations. Specifically, the McDonalds' freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by December 20, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). A previous variance was granted in May of 2012 extending the compliance date by an additional 3 years to December 20, 2015. Then again in 2015 a variance was granted to extend the compliance date to December 20, 2018. This request is to extend the compliance date an additional three years to December 20, 2021. 3. APPEAL ZBA180032 Address: 825 Laporte Ave Owner/Petitioner: William Ward Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This request is for an addition to the primary house. The allowable floor area on the rear-half of the lot is 837.5 square feet. The existing alley house exceeds the allowable floor area on the rear-half of the lot by an additional 1330.5 square feet. The request will exceed the existing square footage by 13 square feet, for a total of 2,181 square feet in the rear-half of the lot. 4. APPEAL ZBA180033 Address: 620 Locust St Owner/Petitioner: Cynthia Reffler Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(2)(b)2. Project Description: This request is for a new accessory building. The proposed accessory building has a varying eave height from 10 feet to 17.92 feet along the side property line; the maximum allowable eave height is 10 feet. 5. APPEAL ZBA180034 Address: 1925 Constitution Avenue Owner/Petitioner: Kingsley and Jean Meldrum Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d), 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This request is for an addition to the existing attached garage. The proposed addition encroaches 4.5 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback, and the eave of the addition further extends to the property line past the allowable 2.5 feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT ZONING 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. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 216 N. College Avenue Petitioners: Gast Johnson & Muffly, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Brinkman & Lamar Owners: 200 N. College, LLC Zoning District: Downtown (D) Code Section: 3.8.7.1(D)(3) Project Description: Pursuant to City Code Section 2-51(2) this variance request is to be reheard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This request is to not have existing off-premise signage be included in the total of allowable signage for the property, leaving the available sign allowance for new tenants of the building. The maximum sign allowance for the property is 636 square feet. Existing off-premise signage includes 1,200 square feet. The request would result in 1,836 square feet of possible signage on the property. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was approved for redevelopment in 2017. Originally this was 1 lot with a couple commercial buildings which has now been subdivided into 3 lots with 6 commercial buildings. Two of the new buildings were existing but have received additions and façade changes as part of the redevelopment. The 216 N College property is one of the existing buildings that received such changes. One of the existing elements of this building is 4 rooftop off-premise signs (billboards) that are sized 12’x 25’ (300sf) each, which have been on the rooftop for over 50 years. In general, signs are regulated by the Land Use Code (LUC) to prevent the proliferation of signs and to maintain a high-quality aesthetic environment. Some of the current standards in place include a limitation of square footage of signage per property, a prohibition on rooftop signs, and a prohibition on new off-premise signs. The subject property’s current allotment of sign square footage is 636 sf. This allowance can be divided among the multi-tenants of the building and through the different sign types permitted by the sign section of LUC. The issue in this case is the 4 existing off-premise signs that are on the roof already constitute a total of 1,200 sf. of sign area, which, in itself, exceeds the overall allowance leaving no square footage for any new tenants. This overage of sign allowance and location of the signs on the roof, are both nonconformities with the current sign standards, however, the billboards themselves are not a nonconforming use on the property. As mentioned in the applicants’ submittal, the Federal Highway Beautification Act prevents any new off- premise signage to be located within a certain distance of a scenic byway. This portion of N. College Ave is within the scenic byway and would not allow for new off-premise signage, which aligns with the LUC prohibition of new off-premise signage. These standards would prevent a new, smaller size off-premise sign. It has been a goal of the City to reduce the number of off-premise signs. As property is developed or redeveloped they are reviewed for compliance with current standards of the City including but not limited to the LUC. When this property was being reviewed for redevelopment, staff applied this historical interpretation, and it was acknowledged by the property owner and City that these signs were nonconforming because of their size and location. The approved redevelopment plans indicated the Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 elimination of these nonconformities by removing the off-premise signs. The subsequent building permit for 216 N College Ave also illustrated demo of the off-premise signs. This change demonstrated compliance with the Land Use Code. At the time of purchase of the property the current building owner (Brinkman) was assigned a lease agreement with Lamar (the owner of the off-premise signs) and the two amended the original lease agreement to reflect Brinkman as the landlord under the original lease. The current term of the original lease that commenced in 2008 is 15 years. This lease should expire in September of 2023. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval to allow the existing off-premise signage to remain and the allowable square footage of signage to be increased to 1,836sf for the period of 5 years and finds that: • Granting the variance for 5-years, the remaining time on the current lease, the request is not detrimental to the public good. • The current owner was assigned a lease agreement at the time of purchase and so did not cause the hardship imposed by the lease. • The lease is set to expire in September 2023. • The off-premise sign has existed over 50 years and became a nonconformity when the applicable regulations were created. • If the variance is not approved, then new tenants of the building do not have sign allowance to advertise their business. • Once the lease expires in September 2023, the hardship no longer exists and the Applicant can choose whether to keep either the billboards or the tenant signs in order to comply with the allotted square footage of signage for the property. Therefore, during the remaining 5 years of the lease agreement, strict application of the sign standards of the Land Use Code result an exceptional practical difficulty upon the tenants and applicant that was not caused by the act or omission of themselves. The approval with a condition would not be a strict application that causes an exceptional practical difficulty and any renewal of a lease after the current term is expired would no longer be a hardship because it would be caused by the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA180021, with the following condition: • This variance will expire on October 1st, 2023. Attachments: MEMO: Billboard Reduction Options ZBA Minutes of the July 2018 Meeting Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180031 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4424 Denrose Ct Owner: Archland Property LLC Petitioner: James Borgel, Holland and Hart Zoning District: CG Code Section: 3.8.7.1(A)(3)(c) Project Description: This request is to extend the seven-year period of time in which a nonconforming sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits, has to comply with the City's regulations. Specifically, the McDonalds' freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by December 20, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). A previous variance was granted in May of 2012 extending the compliance date by an additional 3 years to December 20, 2015. Then again in 2015 a variance was granted to extend the compliance date to December 20, 2018. This request is to extend the compliance date an additional three years to December 20, 2021. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code requires that all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed into the City must be removed or brought into compliance with the current provisions of the code no later than 7 years after the date of such annexation. The McDonalds Restaurant property is part of the Interchange Business Park development that was annexed on December 20, 2005. Therefore, before the variance was approved in 2012, the sign had to be removed or made compliant by December 20, 2012. The development is located at the southeast corner of I-25 and East Mulberry. In the past, it was the only portion of the intersection or area along East Mulberry that had been annexed into the City. Since the last time a variance was granted for this sign, the property directly west on the other side of SE Frontage Road was annexed. This property was redeveloped to a gas station. This development was reviewed and approved by the City and they complied with the City standards, including compliance with sign standards. There have been other annexations in the vicinity of the subject property. The I-25 public right-of-way that is located in the City’s Growth Management Area was annexed. An annexation know as the East Gateway Annexation has occurred in August of this year. The East Gateway annexation does create an enclave for those properties located along E Mulberry. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • In past a variance has been granted based on the context of the neighborhood; since the last variance, the context of the neighborhood has changed, and therefore the request is not nominal and inconsequential within the context of the neighborhood. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property • 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. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the ZBA180031. 1 WRITTEN STATEMENT This is an application for renewal of a three-year variance the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) originally granted in 2012 and extended for an additional three-year term in 2015. The current variance expires on December 30, 2018. Pursuant to Section 2.10.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Code”), the Property owner Archland Property I, LLC (“Applicant”) is submitting this written statement in connection with its application for a variance from the provisions of Section 3.8.7.1(A)(3)(c) of the Code requiring that “all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the city shall be removed or made to conform to the provisions of this Article no later than seven (7) years after the effective date of such annexation.” Background: Applicant owns the real property having an address of 4424 Denrose Court, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (the “Property”). The Property is located at the southeast corner of I-25 and Mulberry Street and is part of the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation (the “Business Park”) which was annexed into the City effective December 20, 2005. The Property is zoned General Commercial. The Property is the site of a franchisee-owned McDonald’s restaurant, and contains an approximately 60-foot-tall 2-sided freestanding sign, with faces of approximately 176 square feet per side (the “Sign”) located in the northwest corner of the Property. At the time the Sign was constructed, the Property was in unincorporated Larimer County. The Sign was built in conformance with the conditions of Permit - #01-SN0008 issued by Larimer County (the “County”) on November 26, 2001. The Property was subsequently annexed to the City of Fort Collins on December 20, 2005. 2 In accordance with Section 3.8.7.1(G)(2) of the Code, freestanding signs, like the Sign, may only have a maximum height of 18 feet above grade and faces may not exceed 90 square feet per side. On May 10, 2012, the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals granted Applicant a variance permitting the Sign to remain, as is, until December 20, 2015 because the Sign only diverged from the Code in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the Property's neighborhood (the “2012 Variance”). A second three-year variance allowing the Sign to remain was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 12, 2015 after finding that the neighborhood surrounding the Property was predominantly commercial with signage that does not comply with City standards and was likely to remain that way for many years beyond the second extension date of December 30, 2018. Request for a Variance: Applicant is hereby requests a variance from Section 3.8.7.1(A)(3)(c) of the Code to extend its use of the non-conforming Sign for at least an additional three (3) years, to December 20, 2021. With one exception, the conditions at the time the City granted the 2015 Variance have not materially changed. The lone exception is the Maverick gas station and convenience store located at 651 Frontage Road that was recently annexed into the City and opened for business in April of 2018. However, as will be discussed in more detail below, we believe that allowing the existing McDonald’s sign to remain in place for an additional 3 years will prove to be a benefit to the new Maverick station. Applicant has discussed this proposed variance with the operators of the Maverick station, and they have indicated that they are in support of the request. A letter of support from Maverick is included with our application. Except for the Maverick Station, neighboring commercial properties along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor and the other three corners of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange are located within the County and have not been annexed to the City. In addition, virtually all nearby highway service uses, such as restaurants and hotels, are located West of I-25 and are located in unincorporated Larimer County with freestanding signage easily visible from I-25. These County service uses will be able to maintain large and tall freestanding signs for at least seven (7) more 3 years (upon annexation to the City, a neighbor or competitor would have seven (7) years to cause its sign to be in compliance under the Code) and will continue to draw the majority of highway traffic into the Larimer County businesses, resulting in a loss of business, and City sales taxes, for the City’s service uses located on the East side of I-25, including the McDonald’s restaurant and the Maverick store. If the Applicant’s request for an additional three-year variance is denied and Applicant is forced to remove its existing sign, no City businesses East of I-25 will have signage that is readily visible from I-25, and I-25 traffic will be drawn to the County businesses West of I- 25. City businesses will lose traffic and sales revenue, and the City will lose sales tax revenue. Allowing Applicant’s sign to remain in place for an additional period of time will draw highway service traffic to the East of I-25 and enhance the ability of Applicant and other City businesses at that location to remain competitive with the County businesses West of I-25. The differences between the City’s sign regulations and the County’s regulations put the Applicant, and any other City business in the vicinity of the I-25/Mulberry Road interchange, at a competitive disadvantage to the neighboring County businesses. Approving this request for a variance would enable Applicant to continue to maintain equal footing, with its neighbors and competitors along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor for at least three (3) more years. Applicant’s Request Meets the Standards for a Variance under the Code: Applicant’s request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in Section 2.10.2(H) of the Code because such variance (i) diverges from the standards set forth in the Code “in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood,” (ii) will continue to advance the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code, (iii) is not “detrimental to the public good,” and (iv) does not authorize “any change in use.” Considering the Variance in the Context of the Neighborhood: The Property is located at the southeast corner of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange and is surrounded by commercial properties that form the eastern edge of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. There are numerous freestanding signs along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor near the Property, including those shown below, which exceed 18 feet in height and some of which have faces larger than 90 square feet per side. Hence, when considering that other signs that are comparable in size to the Sign already exist in the neighborhood, extending Applicant’s deadline to remove the Sign for three (3) additional years would merely diverge from the standards of the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way. 4 5 6 Residential properties lie to the east of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. We do not believe the residential properties are a part of our neighborhood. Instead, based on their location and character, they form a separate and distinct neighborhood. They are located to the east and beyond the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. They are located far enough from the Property that the Code does not require Applicant to give them notice of our variance application. 7 Moreover, owners within the residential neighborhoods have no reasonable expectation that the Sign will be taken down and replaced with a smaller sign. The closest residential neighbors are in unincorporated Larimer County and would have no basis to object to the sign if the Property continued to be governed by Larimer County’s sign code. The Sign has been on the Property for seventeen (17) years, and when erected the Property was in the County and conformed with the County’s regulations. The other signs in the County portion of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor that exceed the County's current sign dimension regulations have been there for years as well and will not be removed or replaced any time soon due to the County grandfathering-in these signs. In any event, even if one were to consider the residential neighborhood to be part of our neighborhood, the divergence from standards and impact of the variance are nominal. Replacing the Sign will not have a significant impact on the views from the residential properties given the number of other large signs in the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. Replacing the Sign will not create a view free of large signs – Applicant’s Sign is just one of many. As such, replacement of the Sign will not have a significant positive impact on the use, enjoyment or value of the homes. Furthermore, the variance is not perpetual. It is for a relatively short period of time – three (3) years. Advances the Purpose of the Code This variance would satisfy the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code by: (i) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all; and (ii) being sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. First, as referenced above, the other three corners of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange are in the County. As a result, many properties possess taller and larger freestanding signs than are allowed in the City. Granting the variance fosters a more rational relationship among the businesses in the Mulberry Street commercial corridor by allowing the Property to temporarily remain on equal footing with the neighboring County commercial properties. Second, the variance is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods because the Sign is comparable in size with other existing signs along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. By limiting the duration of the variance, Applicant is balancing the requirements of the Code with the competitive disadvantage that Applicant, a City business, will suffer because its Property was annexed into the City well before other competing businesses located along the Mulberry commercial corridor. The Variance Benefits the Public Allowing the Sign to stand for the requested extended compliance period would benefit the public by supporting employment and increased sales taxes to the City for three (3) more years. Sales at this location have already been reduced because of the numerous road improvement projects currently underway in Fort Collins, including work on Mulberry Street (Highway 14), and Highway 85. McDonald’s Corporation’s studies show that up to 61% of sales for McDonald’s restaurants are impulse purchases and, as a result, lowering the height of a freestanding McDonald’s sign will cause a further decline in sales for the restaurant. Applicant anticipates a 8 drop between approximately 11% and 15% in sales upon lowering the Sign because the Sign provides critical sight orientation for travelers from I-25 as described below. Such a drop will reduce sales tax revenues to the City and may result in the loss of some jobs. Allowing the Sign to continue in its current configuration will prevent these additional declines and help offset the impacts associated with the ongoing road construction. Allowing the sign to continue will also help drive traffic to the Maverick location, with a commensurate increase in City sales tax collections. As shown above, a traveler on I-25 heading northbound would not be able to see a shorter sign as the sign would be completely blocked by the building located to the southwest of the Property. Also, as shown above, the Sign clearly helps orient a traveler heading southbound on I-25 to the restaurant. Without the visual cues provided by the Sign, a traveler is likely to continue to a different restaurant which may be located outside the City resulting in a loss of tax revenues for the City. As such, requiring Applicant to remove the Sign is detrimental to the public good by decreasing sales tax revenues to the City and potentially resulting in a reduction of staffing levels at the restaurant. McDonald’s is Committed to Fort Collins McDonald’s and its franchisee are committed to the City. McDonalds is currently undergoing major reinvestments in its Fort Collins stores that are expected to exceed Four Million Dollars ($4M) through the end of 2019. The Property’s franchisee is committed to quality and to the continued success of this location and the surrounding area. Granting this variance request will contribute to the vitality of the City in general, and to nearby properties. No Change in Use Applicant is not seeking a change of use with this variance request; rather Applicant wants to temporarily maintain the status quo and merely extend its deadline for replacing the Sign. Conclusion: Applicant acknowledges that at some point in the sign must be brought into conformance with the current City sign code. However, with the one exception of the Maverick site, conditions along the Mulberry commercial corridor have not changed materially since 2012 and that time has not yet come. Allowing the Applicant to maintain its existing sign for an additional three-year period will benefit Applicant, the City, and other City commercial uses to the East of I-25, and we respectfully request the Board grant the variance as requested. 9 Maverick Letter of Support (See Attached) 10 11229454_1.docx Location of Sign on Property A 0' 11 1 tl C 0 0 Y a b itahai7filiLiTaZT 1.31;.'1P311. - COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 14 (000 WM COLCPACL7 5T4 ,5 SITE PLAN face OF WORK OTT. SIGN It I ACTION PROVIDE / INSTALL DESCRIPTION PACE A POLE SIGN 10-0' OW 70-150 SIGN FACER _ I 70-160 SO 24 2 PROVIDE / INSTALL LED LIONT BEAMS (9ECLR17 LIGHTING) 0 3 PROVIDE / INSTALL RACCWAT (EMS WO' CDGNALDS I 4 PROVIDE / INSTALL 7044 DIRECTIONAL 02VE-5100 DRIVE•T210 I B PROVIDE / INSTALL 7044 PIPECNNAL TURK YOU WANK YOU 2 6 PROVIDE / INSTALL 43PS PRESEU. BOARD I 7 PROVIDE / INSTALL 0015LE RAMAT =RAWL / CLEARANCE B PROVIDE / INSTALL COD INIT MAE DISTAL • BY G(ITCtIER) RID LED 2 9 PROVIDE / INSTALL PP43 MENU BOARD SPECIFICATIONS: ElLb1121491I 1441 C., 100roph, Dpoeure C ForteUrrACAL err, , i'Z'Z'2°.111P` .,,,-.""A 11171,ir 351,s1. Round Woo. A97,1 A59 God. 5 de ottevolant, FY • Ask. . Deoten end lobriectIon accordtte , hot MS ,corrent odlelco. gOlOr :1=re F70-1Cere electrode. for SAWproem., ralGECT21 Nolen .14 conetructIon oc“rdlne to ACI tken 20 N.5 ord the •len ',oho I. 0.1.‘votaly braud aga!nst *Ind leads for AltlIrnion or 4 days, Frr aboo ,rnay bo Ingalled the torn. day ao Oho lootIng I. pavrod.) god "57"t. "o'yt '111 'ot:a CUSTOMER APPROVAL I tnav, Metal Su RS.* 6.4125 &who art9 Pod Om 10NowIng 0500. 500530mbl. f ) copy and ists7.710. ( ) Mobriria I Ca. I DIrnans‘cas Caatoomers / 1052, Larimer County Building Permit For Sign (01-SN0008) Larimer County Building Department 200 West Oak Street Permit Number: 01-SNOOOS Date Issued: P. 0. Box 1190 Date Expires: Fort Collins, CO 80522 Permit Type: LARIMER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT Work Description: FREE STANDING SIGN November 26, 2001 May27,2003 FREE ------ Owner ------ ------ Contractor------ INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK LLC, CO LIABILITY CO YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY Construction Address: 4424 DENROSE CT FTC Subdivision Name: ?? Parcel Number: 871520700 I Space: Lot: ?? Block/Tract: The owner/contractor agrees to perfom1 the work described according to the plans and specifications submitted and with all provisions of applicable ordinances, state laws, and building codes. The owner/contractor also acknowledges that the granting of this permit does not give authority to violate any of these regulations and understands that it is their responsibility to insure that compliance to the above provisions are met. The pennit is subject to all red line corrections as noted on the approved plans and attached conditions. The approved plans and permit card shall be avaHable at the construction site. A reinspection fee may be assessed if the approved plans are not available or for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for which the inspection has been scheduled is not completed or when corrections called for have not been made. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE BUILDING OR WORK AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED BY May 25, 2002, OR lF THE BUILDING OR WORK AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONDED AT ANY TIME AFTER THE WORK IS COMMENCED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, OR IF THE PROPERTY OWNER, PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM THE PERMIT IS ISSUED FAILS TO REQUEST AN INSPECTION BY May 25, 2002. THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON May 27, 2003 UNLESS AN EXTENSION OF AN ADDITIONAL 18 MONTHS IS REQUESTED IN WRITING. FAILURE TO HAVE THE FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED, OR WHERE APPLICABLE, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OBTAINED, OR AN EXTENSION APPROVED WILL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE ADOPTED REGULATIONS OF LARJMER COUNTY AND SUJECT TO REMEDIES AS ALLOWED BY LAW. I have read the above notification and attached conditions and agree to comply with these regulations and the County approved plans. If the signatory below is someone other than the property owner, the signatory represents and warrants that he/she has full authority to sign this permit on behalf of the property owner and to bind the owner to all terms and conditions herein. Name of Owner: --~-~Ju{ _____ f_J_-_2_6_-_Z_t1_'!1_J __ ~ ______ (Please Print) By: __________________________________ (Signature) __________________________________ (Titlror Relationship to owner if signed by someone other than owner) Larimer County Building Department 200 West Oak Street Permit Number: 01-SN0008 Date Issued: P. 0. Box 1190 Date Expires: Fort Collins, CO 80522 Permit Type: 970-498-7700 Inspections: 970-498-7697 CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS 1: Property owners/contractors are responsible for assuring that structures meet Larimer Countys' minimum requirements for setbacks from property lines, rights of way, and for the accuracy of any plans submitted showing these details. County Building Inspectors are not equipped to verify these distances/setbacks when making inspections. Property owners are strongly advised to hire a Colorado Licensed Land Surveyor that will locate the property lines and verify that the structure location is as shown on the approved plans and meets Larimer Countys' minimum setback requirement. 2: Inspection requests are to be made at least 24 hours prior to the requested inspection time. 3: - MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE IS 180 SQUARE FEET . - MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT IS 60 FEET. - ALL SIGNS MUS~ BE LOCATED COMPLETELY ON PRIVATE PROERTY AND SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON OR OVER ROAD EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY. - SIGN PLACEMENT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGHT TRIANGLE STANARDS AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 4.3.F OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE. - EACH LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PRINCIPAL USE IS LIMITED TO ONE SIGN. - NO SIGN MAY CONTAIN AN FLASHING, ROTATING, ANIMATED OR OTHERWISE MOVING FEATURES. SIGNS WITH A CHANGEABLE MESSAGE MUST REMAIN MOTIONLESS FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE MINUTE. - ANY LIGHT USED TO ILLUMINATE A SIGN. MUST BE ARRANGED TO REFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND AWAY FROM THE VISION OF PASSING MOTORISTS. - PORTABLE SIGNS, REVOLVING AND ROTATING SIGNS, OR STRINGS OF LIGHT BULBS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OTHER THAN TRADITIONAL HOLIDAY DECORATIONS AND WIND DRIVEN SIGNS ARE PROHIBTED. 4: 5: NO FINAL FLOOD INSPECTION NEEDED. 6: PLEASE READ RED-LINES ON PLANS OVER CAREFULLY. FINAL APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO ON-SITE INSPECTIONS. {ONE SINGLE POLE STYLE SIGN ONLY.} 7: *NOTE*: SPECIAL INSPECTIONS, BY THE DESIGNING OR PROJECT ENGINEER, AND WET STAMPED LETTERS ARE REQUIRED. SEE RED-LINES ON PLANSl PAYMENT HISTORY November 26, 2001 May 27 2003 FREE Item# Description Account Code Tot Fee Paid Prv. Pmts Cur. Pmts - - - - - ---------------- ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- 20 Plot Plan Revie 101.018110.0 30.00 30.00 30.00 .00 100 Building Permit 118.018300.0 162.00 162.00 162.00 .00 130 Use Tax Collect 118.018300.0 60.00 60.00 60.00 .00 TOTAL FEE PAID: TOTAL FEE $252 . oo o , ... 5AJooo~ $252.00 Sign Plans °70-150 SIGN SCALE • I/4• • 0.0 mirel luasua.dcpth sal penenuton ado tear. fog *ovum n do. a.m.- ty 01 e-st cc c ',, nee. n In perlusure.1 alvn..Ind ..staolped Inter ,prel ■ to ■11.1.44ng insp<0. Ok CONDUIT • UBC CLASS 4 SOIL SAND / CLAY ASSUMED, IF DIFFERENT CONTACT ENGINEER Soo rub 351012 CC pelomodby COOS Ilegslesd64.51146666016616616 IsIdupssler. CONCRETEcoMPRESsIVE STRENGTH • 26 DAYS Pc • 2600 • PSI MINIMA EL R 47. S.F. A 6.72 S. EL. 44 547 F. A• 47.50 S.F. 5• 10.500 PT. A• 54.00 S.P. EL• 40.500 FT. C up! Ne o as cz 1-5 u 11/ 08 3‘g 0 ,4 1E1 317 PL 144167(0-10. 646 I IN DIA MOLES FOR ($ I' DIA ASES 5/16 roWed- 5/I6 I TEL KING '4ST A4r1t4TE 67 1— 5 Ai CS PIPE 1,10. PIPE 16..(.1476) A6315 °MATCHING PLATE DETAIL -PIPE ISO'Y 576) 0555 p4,15 Se- G and S .c 15o @BASE PLATE DETAIL 04 ;MAR RING Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180032 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 825 Laporte Ave Owner/Petitioner: William Ward Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This request is for an addition to the primary house. The allowable floor area on the rear-half of the lot is 837.5 square feet. The existing alley house exceeds the allowable floor area on the rear-half of the lot by an additional 1330.5 square feet. The request will exceed the existing square footage by 13 square feet, for a total of 2,181 square feet in the rear-half of the lot. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was platted in 1887 and the primary structure was built in approximately 1935. The primary was built to be oriented closer to the alley. Current zoning requirements limit the amount of square footage allowed on the rear half of the property. The resulting issue with this alley house is it exceeds the current standard. The request is for an additional 13 square feet; however, the proposed addition is 200 square feet. The applicant is removing floor area from the existing garage to be closer to meeting current standards. This results in the variance request for only 13 additional square feet. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The request is not detrimental to the public good. • The variance request does not exceed the allowance of floor area for the overall lot. • The original placement of the primary structure places most of the floor area on the rear half of the lot. Therefore, location of the existing structure created an exceptional situation unique to the property and the strict application of the standards results in a hardship that is not caused by an act or omission of the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of ZBA180032. We believe that our variance, if granted, would not be a detriment to the public good. 1) We believe that we have an extraordinary and exceptionally unique situation in the fact that it is an alley house. The front door and the kitchen are on the back of the house facing a very undesirable view of the alley. The limitations on the allowable square footage for the rear of the lot are preventing us from creating a residence that is up to the standard that is expected in the old town/historic area. 2) We want to create a home that is functional, attractive, and appropriate for the neighborhood. We feel like the variance we are requesting will make the property and residence equally well or better than any option that complies with the current standard. The reason for our request for a variance us because we area wanting to create a desirable master suite. By using an existing laundry/mechanical room to make a walk-in closet and the only main floor bathroom into a private master bathroom. We will then need to add about 200 sq. ft. to provide a new laundry/mechanical room and guest bathroom. 3) Our request for the variance is nominal and inconsequential in the fact that we’re only asking to add approximately 10% to the livable space and less than 3% to the total lot space. The addition will not be seen by anyone other than the neighbor to the east, who is excited about our renovation and have given their approval. The addition is only on the main level, therefore will not obstruct any existing views. The current floorplan is in a confined L-shape in which we are only wanting to add square footage within that footprint. It will not extend beyond any existing perimeters or setbacks form either side, back or front. 825 Laporte Avenue • Board and Batting Siding • Brands: • Hardy Board or Smart Siding • Stained wood accents • Aluminum windows • Metal roofing Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180033 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 620 Locust St Owner/Petitioner: Cynthia Reffler Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(F)(2)(b)2. Project Description: This request is for a new accessory building. The proposed accessory building has a varying eave height from 10 feet to 17.92 feet along the side property line; the maximum allowable eave height is 10 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: A building permit was issued for an accessory building that had the ridgeline running north and south complying with the eave standard of 10 feet in height along a side lot line. During construction a change was made to orient the roof for a more efficient installation of solar panels. When revision drawings were submitted to update the building permit it was found that the eave along the side lot line would be out of compliance. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The request is not detrimental to the public good. • The orientation of the lot has the side lot lines running north and south. • The proposed accessory structure footprint is 340 sf. • The eave runs 20 feet along the 190 feet side property line. Therefore, the lot orientation hinders the ability to install an efficient solar energy system on a gabled roof and the strict application of the standard results in a practical difficulty not cause by the act or omission of the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of appeal ZBA180033. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ 620 Locust Street My name is Cynthia Reffler, and I have been building and remodeling sustainable homes in Fort Collins for 16 years. We prioritize energy efficiency, natural lighting, passive and active solar design and use of natural materials. 620 Locust Street is a house I remodeled for myself. We stripped and furred out walls for more insulation, we added a second story and super-insulated the entire home. We took the existing roof off the house and placed it in the front yard. We made some structural modifications to it per our engineer and placed it back on the new second story after it was framed, keeping over 6 tons of material out of the landfill. We submitted garage plans that were approved this past spring with the roof ridge running north to south. While building the walls of the garage I thought - why not turn the roof so that we can get solar panels on the roof, seeing as the house roof on this same property doesn’t allow for an effective installation of solar panels. I called my engineer to rework the roof, and we built it as I submitted the revised drawings for approval. Sadly, neither my engineer nor myself knew of the 10’ overhang rule, which in effect disallows the gable end of a garage to face side lots. I definitely put the cart before the horse continuing and completing the construction of the garage before the revisions were approved. I am so sorry for that. It would cost me a considerable amount to change the roof. It would have to be torn down and completely rebuilt. Additionally, if the roof were changed, I would have nowhere to put solar panels. Also when considering other garages on this same alley, I feel the proposed roof is a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the zoning code. Other nearby garages are considerably taller and more massive than this garage. And the neighbor most affected by this garage roof is in favor of the garage design, especially knowing it was done to support a solar panel installation. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA180034 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1925 Constitution Avenue Owner/Petitioner: Kingsley and Jean Meldrum Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d), 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This request is for an addition to the existing attached garage. The proposed addition encroaches 4.5 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback, and the eave of the addition further extends to the property line past the allowable 2.5 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was platted in 1972 and the original building was built approximately in 1975. The structure currently meets the setback requirements of the R-L zone district. It appears most structures in the neighborhood were built to meet the 5 feet side setbacks. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The proposed request would result in less than a 10 feet separation in between two primary structures. • Within the context the neighborhood, it appears most structures are meeting the setback and therefore, variance to the side setback would not be considered nominal and inconsequential. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of ZBA180034. Zoning Variance - additional written statement As the property owner of a single story ranch at 1925 Constitution Avenue, Lot # 39 Foothills Green First Filing I would like to add additional space to the existing 2 car garage on the north side of the lot for the following reasons: 1. My wife and I love the neighborhood, our neighbors and do not want to have to consider moving due to the lack of garage/storage space as we plan to retire in this property. 2. Having more than 3 vehicles causes hardship in the winter and summer months due to the weather. Freezing in the winter and hot in the summer. This is becoming more of an issue as we get older. Each vehicle has a set of winter tires which are being stored outside due to lack of space. This is unsightly and reduces the useful life of the tires. 3. The lack of storage space for our lawn care equipment and supplies. The addition space will replace the current 10’X10’ shed currently positioned on part of the proposed extension site which is undersized for our bicycles and lawn equipment. 4. As we prepare for retirement a dedicated space for a hobby shop is another consideration. The additional space in the proposed tandem garage will allow for a modest workshop for woodworking, routine bicycle and automotive maintenance, as well as organized easy access to inside storage space for seasonal recreational equipment. Other considerations: A. The location of all site utilities have been confirmed (using 811). The only utility affected is the main electrical service to the home on the existing north garage wall. Having consulted with the city and an electrician, the panel and meter can be moved to the east on the same wall to remain in building code compliance. All other utilities are unaffected (water, sewer, gas, phone and cable). B. My wife and I are avid gardeners and enjoy maintaining our front and back yards. The south side of the lot has more than 10 feet of setback for access to utilities in the back yard. C. We maintain and enjoy excellent relationships with our neighbors adjacent to our property and in the neighborhood in general. I do not foresee any objections to our proposal which will maintain the current roofline and pitches, which will not direct rain water to our neighbors’ properties. D. If approved the addition will be built to match the current structures façade and roof line as the enclosed sketches illustrate. Summary: • We believe additional enclosed garage space would be an improvement for our neighbors and ourselves as the property owners because it will improve the general appearance of the property in the neighborhood and negate the need to park our vehicles on our driveway or store equipment outside. • Summary continued: • I have already consulted with contractors regarding electrical and structural issues to insure the cost of the project (if approved) is within our means. So we are ready to proceed to the building permit phase if granted a zoning variance to build to the property line. Thank you for your consideration to the proposed improvement of the property. Kingsley Meldrum Home owner Current Garage Proposed Garage Addition Current Isometric Sketch Proposed Isometric Sketch /- •647ACZAA("?2 ,'"cvc NGS IM VERTICAL RISSAR LONG (IS) RECUIRED -EVENLY SPACED I I/2. DIA 456 ANCHOR BOLTS SPACED 1/2°0/C j..4e-z-. Zn5e.c.-Pr. ,3 e ,t):r2/ y ,41•66>D,nioy 4/7.- (1/....es 5075 e,d) ri fo et..1-1.,/;.,, cpY- po _ ("e, REBAR PLAN VIEW SCALE 5/4. • 1, 0 Is E 1 . 1,2119,141,1,, NO, 9 57 • - ATIA5°1/,4‘ AS. S. B ) Lower: PIPE GPLUIVE RING ‘l AG r .S1-.07 .TWELD0S,, `-• E70 UPPER ere OP RING 4 7r AS SNUG AS POSSIBLE 0 THICK 11111 A56 k PL E70 INSIDE 6/16 r r GUIDE RING r TOP OP LOWER PIPE ree 5111 -16F7' COP RING 4 TR AND SOT. OF PL 1/4 SLOT WELDS, Iu.177WRICKPIPE 0 'ter1/4.10 A. 14110.1.1•NigUG ,I6L INSIDE 111P11 ✓ 5/16 E70 (0,6•46 it• comply with Ovaerres enlainmarland Pluda.Cerlea woval. 240 adopted by [Jamnea......, 777 5. o 10 rni 101rtrn iy adn cr vcw,m a. t , W , u ,3.0. n10. IA 5/4;1 RING 24' (.575) PIPE ASS GR. 15 SLEEVE DETAIL -- NOT TO SCALE PIPE ED. (.570) ASS GR. IS r-e .\ SLEEVE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE