Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/11/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — December 11, 2008 8:30 a.m. (Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson lStaff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 11, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Bello Ronald Daggett Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride Jim Pisula David Shands EXCUSED ABSENCES: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Suess, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 13, 2008 meeting. Bello seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Abstain: 3. APPEAL NO. 2633 — Tabled with conditions Address: 400 Jackson Avenue Petitioner: Joe Sullivan for Archer Homes, Inc. Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(5), 4.7(E)(3) ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 2 Background: This appeal was tabled from the November 13, 2008 meeting. The variance will allow the rear 50% of the property to contain a Floor Area Ratio of .44 instead of the maximum .25 permitted. Specifically, 2385 square feet of total building floor area would be allowed in the rear half of the lot instead of 1342 square feet. Most of the existing home is already in the rear half of the lot (2190 sq. ft. of the existing 2476 sq. ft.). A 1113 square foot, one-story garage and front entry/sunroom addition on the east and north side of the, home is proposed, of which 195 sq. ft. is located in the rear half of the lot. This additional 195 square feet requires a variance. The variance will also reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15' to 9.25'. The front orientation of the existing home will be changed from Jackson Avenue to West Magnolia, which means that the rear half of the lot will now be the south half, and the south lot line will now be considered to be the rear lot line, which requires a 15' setback. The existing house is 9.25' from the south lot line and the new construction will comply with all setback regulations from the rear and side lot lines. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: An addition is proposed onto the north side of the existing house. The addition will consist of a living area, covered front porch and an attached garage. This addition will change the location of the front entry from Jackson Avenue to Magnolia. Most of the existing home is already in the rear 50% of the lot (south). Most of the addition will be in the front half of the lot, but a portion of the garage will be in the rear half. In order to comply with the requirement that the garage needs to be set back 10' behind the front of the home, there's no way to construct a usable garage without having a small portion of it encroach into the rear half of the lot. Staff Comments: The applicant requested a Floor Area Ratio and setback variance in June, but was denied by the Board. He submitted a revised proposal for consideration at the November 13, 2008 ZBA meeting, but the Board tabled the item in order to allow the applicant to submit revisions which reduce the amount of variance needed and hopefully address some of the neighbor's concerns. The November request was to allow 422 s.f. of the new garage to be in the rear half of the lot. The new request is to allow 195 s.f. of the garage in the rear half. The new plan also increases the setback from the garage addition to the east lot line from the 5' requested in November to 7' requested now. Thus moving the addition 2' further away from the neighbor's house. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. He stated he had received an email from Jim and Marsha Brokish. The email stated "Peter, thank you for sending the latest 400 Jackson proposal. I regret that I cannot attend the variance meeting tomorrow. I have not been contacted by Archer Homes to discuss the proposal. From my point of view, the new proposal has the same aesthetic issues as the last proposal. Reference my letter from last month below. In the old plan, Archer requested a variance on the east side of the lot. In the new proposal, we've rotated the problem by 90 degrees by turning the front of the house to the north. Now the request is for a variance on the south side of the lot. The fundamental problem remains we are trying to pack additions to the existing structure into a space that is too small on the southeast corner of the new subdivided lot. The aesthetically correct option is to move the house to the west or deconstruct and build a new house further to the west. This is the only solution in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and the other two houses already constructed on the original property. I am against this variance. Please disapprove it. Regards, Jim Brokish". The proposal is to reorient the house so there's an addition placed on the north side of the house and a new front entry. That changes the front property line from Jackson to Magnolia. Changing the orientation to Jackson put all but 5' of the house in the rear half of the lot because now the south half of the lot became the rear instead of the east half. If Magnolia becomes the front property line, the south lot line is now the rear property line which requires a 15' setback. The ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 3 existing house is at a 9'Y setback from the existing rear property line so by doing the addition on the front and changing the orientation, a setback variance is now required to reduce the rear setback requirement from 15' to the existing 9.25 feet. Whereas the November application would have required a variance to allow 422 square feet in the rear 50% of the lot, this new design has 195 square feet in the rear half of the lot. A three car garage was proposed in November; the application today is for a two car garage with the garage door facing Magnolia. The proposed garage will comply with the 10 foot setback required from the front of the covered porch. Applicant's Presentation: Joe Sullivan with Archer Homes, 4020 Bingham Hill Road, Fort Collins. Sullivan stated that he is asking for a two car garage and has reduced the variance by about 190 square feet. He stated he still likes the original June proposal better. Shands asked about the pending contract on the property. Sullivan stated he doesn't know what the buyer has planned or even if the contract will go through. Audience Participation: Dan Epstein stated that he lives in the house directly to the east of this property on Magnolia. Epstein stated that they did receive drawings from Sullivan but have had no contact. Barnes sent him a sketch of the drawings and the proposal. Epstein stated it has also come to their attention that Sullivan received a full price offer from someone who was interested in relocating the house to the center of the lot, but he rejected it. Epstein does not feel there is a hardship. He is unclear what the notification process is and stated they are getting calls from all over City Park as to the status of the project. He also stated concerns that some of the trees will be removed under this proposal. At the time that they and the Scotts built their homes, they made great efforts to not tear down trees. and worked with the city forester. The trees are an important consideration, an aesthetic, to this neighborhood. Epstein stated they would support a variance that took into consideration moving this project or the additional mass of the project more to the west. Shands asked Epstein if he and his wife were representing the neighbors. Epstein responded no. Barnes explained the notification process required by the Code. In this case, it is only 6 or 8 neighbors because of City Park, the Magnolia right-of-way, the church, and the Brokish's rather wide property. Bello stated that he felt the 195 square feet that is being added to the rear half of the lot seemed to be a rather minimal impact to the Epsteins and asked Mr. Epstein to comment. Epstein responded that it is impactful from the aesthetic of the whole property because they are putting all of the mass on the east side of the project. He stated it will also interfere with their views. The removal of the trees is also very impactful. He stated a one car garage might require a 50' variance. Epstein reiterated that there has been very little good faith or intent to take into consideration the concerns about aesthetics, impacts, and the trees. Bello then asked the same question of the applicant. Sullivan responded there is no animosity between the neighbors and him. At the time the Epstein's project was built, he made concessions with the lot line adjustments to ensure their project and the Scott's project would work and they went to great lengths to protect the trees. There was a contract on the 400 Jackson Street house at that time, but no drawings were ever presented to the Epsteins showing a house relocated on that lot. About nine months after the Epsteins moved into their house, the contract fell apart. Sullivan held onto the property for a couple of years, was ready to start developing it, and then discovered the code regarding the 50% restriction on the rear of the lot. He also commented that a negative carbon footprint will be left from tearing down a home and constructing a new one. Sullivan stated he has not volunteered information to the neighborhood regarding the pending contract because he doesn't want assumptions to be made. He also stated that the Epstein's ZBA December 11, 2008— Page 4 response to his email presenting the latest proposal was that they didn't see any difference between the November proposal and this current proposal. Board Discussion: McBride stated that whoever lives in the house has a right to a two car garage. It's his opinion this is a hardship because the new code enacted in 2004 made the house noncompliant. Bello asked if a variance would have been required for this proposal before the new ordinance was enacted. ' Barnes responded that was true if the orientation was going to be changed to Magnolia. If he didn't change the orientation, a variance still would have been necessary on the east lot line which would have become the rear setback. Hall stated that he didn't feel it was the right of old town residents to have a two car garage. Bello asked Sullivan if he would be willing to design the garage as a one-story structure instead of two. Sullivan responded, yes. Bello asked Barnes if they could review the old plan as compared to what is being presented today. Barnes responded, no, because a renotification would have to be done. Bello stated that he is more comfortable with the previous plan because it has less impact on the neighborhood and saves the trees. Sullivan stated that he would like the opportunity to do some square footage above the garage. Sullivan asked if he could add square footage to the inside of the home; i.e., expand the attic space by using a dormer on the front or back. Barnes stated that would add square footage to the rear 50% of the lot and a variance would be required. Shands asked if it would be wise to see what the perspective purchaser plans before moving ahead. Sullivan stated that this variance is just for Archer Homes in case the pending contract is not executed. Dickson stated that the variance request is not based on a hardship, and if it were approved it would have to be on the basis of equal to or better than or nominal and inconsequential. Hall stated that he didn't think the board could justify either of those. Bello reiterated that he was disappointed that Sullivan did not communicate with the neighbors about the proposal. He thinks there is a solution other than moving the location of the house. Sullivan stated that the neighbors are not accepting anything less than deconstructing the entire house. Epstein stated that their preference would be to do a new construction project in the center of the lot. If remodeling is the only option, they want the best for the neighborhood and are willing to find a compromise on the garage. But it does mean there will have to be face-to-face discussions. Bello asked the applicant if he wanted the board to vote today or postpone the decision. Sullivan responded that he wanted to postpone it. Barnes suggested that a condition be put on today's motion to not rehear it again until the parties have had thorough discussions. There was discussion about the length of time it could be tabled and whether it should be tabled indefinitely. Eckman stated that it was not proper to require that the two parties agree before it is heard again because Mr. Sullivan has a right to have a vote from the board regardless of receiving neighborhood agreement. Barnes stated that Sullivan would need to invite all neighbors within the 150' radius of the subject property and that he would attend the meeting to answer questions but that no staff opinions would be given. Hall made a motion to table Appeal No. 2633 and put the following conditions on the appeal: (1) that there is meaningful dialogue between the neighbors that are in the contact area and Z B A December 11, 2008—Page 5 the applicant, and (2) that this appeal will expire six months from now. McBride seconded the motion: Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: None Other Business: Barnes stated that Daggett will be gone in January and February of 2009. He also stated that the deadline for meeting the sign code is February 25`", 2009 and there is a possibility that some sign code variance requests will be heard in January and February. Hall asked when the next elections were. Barnes responded they can be held in either February or March. Meeting adjourned at 9:58 a.m. Wight Hall, Chairp rson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator