Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/09/2019Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 MAY 9, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve the April 11, 2019 Minutes with the condition that part of one sentence be removed. Vote Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer, Shields, McCoy, LaMastra Abstain: Nays: None The Motion was carried. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190016 – APPROVED Address: 227 West Street Owner/Petitioner: Tim LeRoy Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8 (D) (3) Project Description: The variance is for a single-family home and accessory building at 227 West Street to exceed allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot by 671.61 square feet with a total of 1965.36 square feet proposed on the rear half. The overall allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot is 1293.75 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The original house is entirely on the rear half of lot. The proposal is to add to the front of the existing building, but also add a detached accessory building in the back. This variance is for additional square footage on the back half of the lot. In this zone district the property is limited to a certain amount of floor area for the entire ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 May 9, 2019 lot and they are not exceeding this amount. What they are exceeding is how much of that floor area can be in the rear half of the lot. There is a large open front yard right now. There was a garage behind the existing structure previously. Boardmember LaMastra asked if there would be living space in the accessory building. Beals explained there is proposed habitable space on the 2nd floor above the garage. The proposal is below the required 7.5 foot ceiling height on the 2nd floor, so this does not count towards the floor area. Boardmember McCoy requested clarification to understand if the garage space counted towards the total square footage. Beals confirmed the garage square footage is included in the total for this zone district. Boardmember Shields asked if the garage structure is meeting all height requirements as proposed. Beals confirmed it is. Applicant Presentation: Tim LeRoy, 227 West Street, addressed the board. He is the new homeowner and will be moving into this residence in the future. The existing structure is about 700 square feet. At one time it was part of the Fort Collins affordable housing program. It needs some work and updates, but they would like to salvage the structure. They discussed the option to demolish the current structure, but that would be wasteful. Another option discussed was to connect the existing cottage to an addition on the front via a hallway. They are a family of four and need the additional space. Or option 3 is to add to the rear half of the lot. Three close neighbors all have buildings on the rear half of the lot. There is hardship based on the location of the existing house and the desire to keep that house. Boardmember LaMastra inquired as to the use of the space above the garage. Mr. LeRoy explained both him and his wife work from home and this will be office space. They will not finish it right away, would probably be storage first. LaMastra asked if there is a reason the accessory building is detached so far back from the existing structure. Mr. LeRoy cannot remember the exact reason. Beals explained the additional 250 square feet of allowable floor area for an accessory building specifies there must be 10 feet of separation. Audience Participation: Amy Benton, 229 West Street, neighbor directly to the north of this property. Ms. Benton asked City Staff if VRBO’s need to be licensed in this zone. Mr. Beals explained they refer to this type of property as short term rentals, and they do require a license with the city. Ms. Benton stated there are a few around them and they would not like one right next door. She also read a letter out loud from another West Street neighbor. The author of the letter asked if the proposal has taken into account the impact on the adjacent property and urges the city to consider the smaller existing neighborhood when deciding whether a variance will be a friendly gesture or lack thereof. Ms. Benton is glad to see a family moving in and glad to meet her new neighbor. Phillip Benton, 229 West Street, addressed the board. Mr. Benton’s concern is the existing structure’s close proximity to his property line. From the north looking south will be a giant wall three feet from his property line, that’s going to rise 25-30 feet in the air. They will no longer be looking at a front yard, they will be looking at a wall. Mr. Benton does not appreciate the practice of selling these single occupancy HUD homes in a package deal when concerned neighbors have requested to have right of first refusal. Katherine Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Dr., addressed the board. Ms. Dubiel drove by this property and through the neighborhood and has seen the current bungalows. This proposal on a very narrow long lot causes her concern. She does not agree this would be nominal and inconsequential to the neighborhood. Accessory building with living space is also a concern. This could be a short-term rental in the future if plumbing is included. This is way too much building on a narrow and small lot. Beals reminded the board this variance is only for additional square footage in the rear half. The rest of the proposal including the front addition is meeting most standards. Whenever a new building is constructed, they are required to build to setbacks, not an existing structure. If any building is to encroach into a setback, then a variance would be required. This new building meets the five foot setback, even though the original building is only set back three feet. Also, if someone was operating a short term rental, a license is needed with corresponding requirements. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 May 9, 2019 Boardmember LaMastra requested confirmation that the height requirements are met for both buildings. Beals confirmed both are within the appropriate parameters. LaMastra asked if the accessory building is plumbed with bathroom and kitchen fixtures. Beals explained they are allowed water and sewer to an accessory building. This is not a dwelling unit, therefore there are no cooking appliances allowed. Boardmember Long and Beals discussed this is not considered a dwelling unit, but is habitable space to be used by those who reside in the primary structure. The accessory building is not an additional dwelling unit, it’s part of the primary dwelling unit. Boardmember Stockover requested confirmation that the existing building is not increasing in height. Beals agreed, this proposal is for an addition onto the front. Boardmember LaMastra stated that the rear lot line isn’t shown on the plans, but it appears the existing house is completely on the rear half of the property. Beals confirmed the same. Boardmember Meyer asked for the total allowable square footage for the whole lot. Beals specified that it’s 3,210.25 square feet. Proposed total square footage is 1,965 square feet, but does not include the second story of the accessory building. If they did include the 2nd floor and garage the total would be 3,145 square feet, which is still below the allowable square footage. Meyer concluded if the structure was more on the east half of the lot, the proposal could be a larger structure as allowed by zoning code. Beals explained they could still not exceed the footprint because the accessory building still has an allowable floor area and maximum footprint. Boardmember Long also stated if there was a long hall then they could add more square footage on the front of the house and not need a variance. Beals stated if the accessory building was attached, then both floors would be counted towards the square footage. Boardmember LaMastra asked if the garage were attached to the cottage, then would the 2nd floor count toward the square footage even though it’s below the ceiling height. Beals confirmed the same. Applicant LeRoy responded to the neighbor concerns that they are not building in line with the current setback, they are meeting setback requirements. Chair Shields allowed Ms. Benton to ask for clarification on what the setbacks are. Board and staff stated the side yard setback is 5 feet and vertical height allows 18 feet for side wall height. If it’s higher than the 18 feet, then step backs are required. There is a diagram included in the application packet on how the 2nd floor is stepping back and is well within regulations. Chair Shields allowed Mr. Benton to approach the microphone again. Mr. Benton would have preferred the applicant had gone higher on the existing cottage instead of the new construction with an 18-20 foot wall facing their property. Chair Shields replied, stating the architecture is designed to have only a single story at the 5 foot setback for a distance of about 7 feet, and then the height increases to 18 feet. Boardmember Long added that most cottages can’t support a second story as they normally lack the proper foundation. Chair Shields allowed Ms. Benton to address the board again. Her main concern is the space that could be a short term rental in the future. Boardmember Long stated short term rentals are a concern for much of our community. Boardmember Stockover stated this property is not approved for a short term rental or a living unit with a kitchen. Requested more information from Beals on the process to turn something into a short term rental. Beals explained if this property did not need a variance, they could have already been building this structure without coming in front of the board. The only permit they have at this point in time is for habitable space in the 2nd story of the garage. If they decided to move forward with a short term rental license, they would have to go through a city review process. If they were meeting the standards of the short term rental license, this would not require another variance. They have potential to move forward with a short term rental license. If violations are found the city sends notice to get the property back into compliance it can result in a summons to court. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 May 9, 2019 Boardmember Meyer asked about the process when the applicant goes for a building review. Do the requirements include an affidavit stating the owner will not be using that space as a dwelling unit. Beals confirmed this is the case, a signed affidavit is filed with the Larimer County Recorder’s office that this is not creating a dwelling unit. Mr. LeRoy stated what he has proposed would not meet the requirements for short or long term rentals, this is not in their plan. Board Discussion: Boardmember Long stated that property owners have a right to develop their property under the code. We can’t limit what applicants do based on people’s fears or what could be done in the future. Short term rentals are a valid concern. The issue with this variance is that the house is on the back of the lot. Usually there is no foundation to allow for a 2nd story on these cottages. It would be hardship to make the owners start from scratch. Boardmember LaMastra inquired about the size of the garage that was previously taken down. Beals cannot confirm the size of the previous structure. It appears about 75% of the new home is on the front of the property. She is slightly bothered by the attached vs. detached structure and whether square footage counts towards the total. She’s struggling with the space above the garage. She understands it’s still under the allowable floor area for the lot. Acknowledged the neighbor’s concerns. We can’t approve or deny based on what may or may not happen in the future. Shields acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns, but also appreciates the architecture. The total square footage is below what is allowable for the lot, and he is in support of this variance Boardmember LaMastra agreed, the plans have stepped back both sides significantly, which speaks to supporting the character of the neighborhood. Boardmember Long made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve ZBA190016 for the following reasons: The variance is not detrimental to the public good, the existing house sits entirely in the rear half of the lot, an accessory structure existed in the rear lot before, the proposed floor area does not exceed what is allowed for the entire lot. Therefore, strict application of the standard results in exceptional practical difficulty caused by the exceptional physical conditions unique to the property not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer, Shields, McCoy, LaMastra Nays: None. The Motion was carried. 2. APPEAL ZBA190017 – APPROVED Address: 1420 Banyan Drive Owner/Petitioner: Mike & Angie Sweeney Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4 (D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance is to construct a sunroom at 1420 Banyan Dr, which encroaches 3 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The rear of this property faces a retention pond. This is an encroachment of 3 feet into the rear yard 15 foot setback. The HOA built a fence that sits back about 3 feet from the property line, creating three feet of extra land within the fenced backyard. Applicants thought they were meeting the setbacks originally, but found out during the process that they were not. Applicant Presentation: Mike Sweeney, 1420 Banyan Drive, addressed the board. He explained the concrete slab in the pictures will be removed. The front of the sunroom will extend approximately 10 feet off of the house. The actual property line was a surprise to the owner, as they built the house and have lived there for 20 years. The owner and all the neighbors considered the back fence to be the property line. The sunroom will be visually appealing and will not block anyone’s view.