Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/08/2008r FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — May 8, 2008 8:30 a.m. ([Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson uStaff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) U Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 8, 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 EXCUSED ABSENCES: David Shands STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Carrie Daggett, , Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, 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 April 10, 2008 meeting. Dickson seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: None Abstain: 3. APPEAL NO. 2612 - APPROVED Address: 513 E. Oak. Petitioner: Sean Windsor Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(4) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line abutting the alley from 7 feet to 4.6' in order to allow a 2 story addition to be constructed onto the rear of the existing home. ZBA May 8, 2008— Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The addition has been approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. The LPC wanted the addition to be wider, but due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of existing kitchen windows, that isn't possible. Lining the addition up with the existing wall would create a 67 foot long, straight wall. The 2' offset breaks up the mass of the wall and adds interest. This side of the home abuts an alley, so the impact of the variance doesn't adversely affect a neighboring property. In fact, the property on the other side of the alley is zoned commercial, wherein 0' setbacks are allowed. Staff Comments: The side lot line does abut an alley, and the other side of the alley is in a commercial zone which allows 0' setbacks. Therefore, the Board may determine that this is a unique situation. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. The property is located at the corner of E. Oak and Riverside and is zoned NCM. It is just across the alley from the CL Zone that runs along Riverside. Normally a 5 foot side yard setback is required in the NCM Zone except when height is added and then additional setback is required. As seen in the applicant's submittal, the side wall will be 20 feet to the top of the dormer and 13 feet along the rest of the wall. In that case, a 7 foot yard setback is required. The addition will be on the alley side so there will be little impact to the neighbor on the other side of the property. There is a house on the CL side but it does not run parallel to the property —rather perpendicular to Riverside and is across an alleyway. Applicant's Participation. Sean Windsor, 513 E. Oak, reported that Barnes pretty well covered everything in his presentation. He did add that the need for a variance became known to him when his engineer's survey was received. He'd assumed as long as they've lived there that the fence was on the property line. He'd learned, in fact, it's encroaching on the alley by 1.5 feet and at the correct property line he does not have enough setback needed to meet Code with his proposed addition. Windsor said the neighbor on the west was not affected but that he was happy they're staying and remodeling. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Dickson wondered if a hardship variance applied in this case. Pisula thought an equal to or better than variance was better suited given it's proximity to the CL zone with its zero setback requirements as well as the character of the neighborhood. Bello asked how many dormers would be in the proposed addition. Windsor replied two on the west side and one on the east side. Their plan was for a stairway leading to a bedroom and bath upstairs with a landing near one of the dormers. The dormers would incorporate the roof line into walls on the second floor. They want/need two stories for their growing family but wanted to be conscientious about scale (height.) Bello asked if they'd be making a correction to the fence. Windsor responded not at this time. Hall was in favor of a variance given the orientation of lots near the property and minimum impact on neighbors. Pisula made a motion to approve appeal number 2612 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is ZBA May 8, 2008— Page 3 requested. As submitted, it will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code only nominally and inconsequentially when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Specifically the lot abuts a commercial district with a zero foot setback and will have no adverse affect on the neighborhood. Additionally the 6 inch variance is nominal and inconsequential, abuts the alley, and there is no negative impact on the neighborhood. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2613 - TABLED Address: 400 Jackson Street Petitioner: Joe Sullivan for Archer Homes, Inc. Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(5) & (E)(3) Background: The variance will allow the rear 50% of the property to contain a Floor Area Ratio of .66 instead of the maximum .25 permitted (3,546 square feet instead of 1,341 square feet.) and will reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5' 4" in order to allow a 2-story addition on the rear of the existing home. The first floor of the addition will be a 646 square foot garage and the second floor will be 523 square foot recreation room. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot was part of a lot line adjustment of 3 lots correcting the existing house from straddling the original side lot line -- continuing the entire existing house to remain on the back half of the new lot. The additions will add to the size of the house on the rear portion of the lot. The attached garage location is best suited behind the house and to the south east corner of the lot as not to place the garage between the house and either of the two streets. Historic Preservation has approved the garage in this location. Staff Comments: The lot line adjustment was done just a few years ago, mainly for the purpose of allowing for the construction of 2 new homes. Previous to that, this particular house was the only house on the property. The lot line adjustment resulted in a new home being constructed on what was previously the rear portion of the lot at 400 Jackson. The original lot abutted the alley, so the existing home originally had access off the alley for parking. The lot split resulted in creating a shallower lot and no alley access. If the Board believes that a garage should be allowed, perhaps the Board should consider a variance for only a 1-story garage addition, and not allow the second floor. Staff Presentation: Barnes reported he'd spoken to Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams who said because of changes to the exterior of the home, the home is not eligible for landmark designation. She also noted the Landmark Preservation Commission does not have a preference for where the garage is placed. Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application —an aerial shot showed how the original lot had been reconfigured in 2005. A parcel that contains one of the two newly built homes are on the east side of the lot and has alley access. The older home/proposed addition is on the west portion of the original lot and does not have alley access. The older home/proposed addition is currently already non -confirming with regard to the rear 50% of the property containing more floor area than ZBA May 8, 2008— Page 4 allowed. The proposed two story addition will have a two car garage and a second story recreation room and add 1,169 square feet to that non -conforming equation. Bello asked what it would take to change the address from Jackson to Magnolia (and would that put the applicant in better position relative to setback requirements?) Barnes replied the front entrance and pedestrian access would need to be on Magnolia. If you're on a corner lot, you could change orientation if the above requirements were met and you changed official records. That change would not help the applicant relative to the need for a variance that would allow 25%of the Floor Area Ratio on the rear half of the lot. Applicant's Participation. Joe Sullivan for Archer Homes, Inc., said he'd worked with Mikal Torgeson to do the lot line adjustment and to consider other potential uses for the original home — rehab or remove and build new. He just recently became aware that only 25% of the Floor Area Ratio should be in the back half of the property and that more than a five foot setback would be needed since the rear lot line no longer abuts the alley. If it had helped to change his address to Magnolia, he would have returned the front door to the pre 1950s location. He'd like to add a garage with a large area above it to make the home more marketable. He hasn't decided whether he'll keep it and live there or sell it. If he had been aware of the constraints earlier he would have eliminated one of the Magnolia lots. He thinks he's back to square one but he's willing to be flexible. Bellow asked if the variance needed is 5' 2". Barnes replied yes. Audience Participation: Jim Brokish, 330 Jackson, lives north of the proposed project. City Park is a classic old neighborhood. He has concerns about the project as proposed. He thinks it'll be too tall and too close to the existing homes. He'd wished there had been a master plan that would have worked for all the affected properties. They're trying to take a home that no longer has historic value and pack the changes in after the two other homes had been built. Hall asked what other situation he'd like to see there. Brokish suggested they tear the old home down. He doesn't see anything workable short of moving the old house forward and have a design consistent with the other two homes to the south and east. Dan Epstein, 327 W. Magnolia, lives in the tan stucco home adjacent to and east of the proposed project. They chose to build their home within Code requirements to the aesthetic and scale of their old town neighborhood. They chose a modest footprint to fit the house onto the property. Their garage is not ideal but it's functional. At the time they purchased the property, they were given the impression by Sullivan that the old home would be torn down and a new home built to the west. Their biggest concern is the density of the project as proposed. The addition will affect their view and quality of life. He'd like to go on the record promoting they tear the old house down or remodel and shift the garage to the other side. Judy Dorsey, 327 W. Magnolia has heard the other affected property owners and agrees with them. Her comments will be broader and focus on the criteria on which the Board will evaluate the application. She'd like to disclose that they are under contract with Sullivan as he did build there home and it is still currently under a 5 year warranty. He did not contact them prior to the meeting, the first they'd heard of the plans for 400 Jackson was the letter from Peter Barnes informing them of the variance request. She thinks the problem could have been avoided with a good master plan. One of the three criteria for which a variance can be granted is hardship. There is no hardship in this case. The proposal should not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. She believes it does not. The proposal is not equal to or better than a proposal ZBA May 8, 2008— Page 5 which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. The variance is not nominal and inconsequential as he is requesting a variance for 3,546 square feet instead of the allowed 1,341 square feet. Finally, she believes it's detrimental to the public good. City Park is popular community park with high pedestrian traffic. What is being proposed is a detriment to what is available for the community in that area. She recommends they move the address to Magnolia for a side versus a rear setback. Board Discussion: Hall asked if what appears to be a breezeway was connected to the house. Sullivan replied the addition is fully connected to the house and what appears to be a breezeway is a porch. Sullivan says he understands the neighbor's concerns and suggested he meet again with Peter Barnes, look at the square footage available in the back yard and come to an understanding of what's allowed under Code. Financially it's not feasible for him to tear down the old house and rebuild. He'd like to restore what's there and add a two car garage to make it a marketable property. Hall asked if it was the applicant's intent is to ask that the discussion be tabled to allow him time to work with Barnes. Sullivan replied yes. He's trying to figure out what his options are, speak to the affected neighbors, redesign, and return in June. Hall asked if the existing structure could be rehabilitated and not require a variance? Barnes replied so long as he doesn't build on than a variance would not be required. McBride made a motion to table appeal 2613. Bello seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: 10. Other Business: Barnes noted the Board will have their Periodic Review with City Council in July, along with the following Boards & Commissions: Air Quality Commission, Community Development Block Grant, Landmark Preservation Commission, and Retirement Committee, The Board provided feedback on the responses to the seven questionnaire questions. Barnes will have a draft for their review and approval at the June 12`h meeting with plenty of time to meet the City Clerk's office deadline of June 27ch Meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. /'tom /Jak�r 7fight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator