HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/08/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the June 12, 2003 meeting
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD'OF APPEALS
Regulir Meeting- May 8, 2003
8:30 a m
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IlStaffLiaison: Peter Barnes(221-6760) I
II Chairperson: Steve Remington JjPhone: (H) 223-7138
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday May 8, 2003, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alison Dickson
Robert Donahue
Dwight Hall
David Lingle
Andy Miscio
Steve Remington
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Stockover made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 10, 2003, meeting.
Lingle seconded the motion. The motion passed.
ZBA,._ey 8, 2003
Page 2
3. APPEAL NO. 2420
Address:
410 East Oak Street — Approved.
Petitioner:
Marc Fryer
Zone:
NCB
Section:
3.8.3(1)
Background:
The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in a detached building
rather than in the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a ceramic art studio to be
conducted in two, new detached buildings to be constructed on the rear portion of the lot. One
building will be a 759 square foot studio; the other building will be a 368 square foot building
housing two kilns. No sales would occur on the premises, and there would be no non-residents
of 410 East Oak Street working on the premises.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Due to the nature of the business, e.g. kiln, heat, dust, etc., the activities need to be done in a
detached building. The design of the buildings will be compatible with the design of the home,
and will be in keeping with the character of other lots on the block that have detached buildings.
All of the setbacks will be met.
Staff Continents:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the Board has heard several
previous requests regarding home occupations in the older neighborhoods in detached buildings.
The home occupation ordinance does allow home occupation activity to be conducted in
detached buildings. In the older neighborhoods the garages are generally detached buildings.
Barnes noted that usually appellants would like to convert an existing building. Barnes stated
that the detached buildings for this property have been demolished and the petitioner is
requesting a variance to allow two new detached buildings to be constructed in connection with a
pottery studio. One building would function as the studio and the other building would house
two kilns. Barnes referred board members to the information in their packets, speifically the site
plan and the elevations. The proposed buildings will maintain the character of the house and the
neighborhood. The existing detached garage was demolished in December.
Lingle asked if the addition on the drawings pertained to the variance request. Barnes stated that
the addition did not pertain to the variance request. Lingle then asked if the lot to floor area ratio
would be maintained with the addition and the two proposed detached buildings. Barnes
responded the lot to floor area ratio would be maintained. The property is in the NCB zone,
which requires a one to one lot area to floor area ratio.
ZBA may 8, 2003
Page 3
Remington asked if the Apellant would be able to convert the proposed buildings into
apartments. Bames replied that if the Apellant wanted to convert a building permit would be
required, but as long as the buildings did not contain a kitchen area the conversion would be
considered an accessory use to the house. A dwelling unit would require a variance due to the
property not having enough lot area (5000 square feet per dwelling unit, the lot is 9500 square
feet).
The Board has granted a number of variances in the past for home occupations to be allowed in
detached buildings in the older part of town. However, those variances have generally been to
allow older, existing detached garages to be converted. In this case, the request is to allow two
new detached buildings to be constructed. If the Board wants to consider this under the "equal to
or better than" standard, it will be necessary to determine what the purpose of the home
occupation ordinance is. Section 3.8.3 of the Code does not contain a specific reference to the
purpose, therefore the following statement may be considered as describing the purpose of the
home occupation regulations:
"The purpose of allowing a home occupation as a permitted accessory use to a dwelling is to
permit the inhabitants of a dwelling to conduct self-employment on the premises where the
inhabitant resides. This self-employment use is intended to only be permitted when the impacts
to the neighborhood are minimal."
With regard to the use of detached buildings, staff suggested that the impact to the neighborhood
can be determined to be minimal only when the neighborhood already contains numerous
detached buildings. In this particular instance, the property is in the old town area, where
detached buildings are very common.
Applicant Participation:
Marc Fryer addressed the Board. Fryer has been a potter for 18 years. He has lived in Fort
Collins for 13 years. Fryer stated that he had a studio on Park Street, but he has since been
divorced and is starting over. The house is a historic home and it is currently set up as a duplex.
If the variance were denied he would have to have the tenants leave. Fryer stated that he would
like to have the studio and kiln housing separate from the house due to the accumulation of dust.
Dickson asked Fryer if he would be selling pottery from his studio. The Appellant replied no
and stated that most of his work is consignment. Dickson asked if he would have any students.
Fryer stated that he may have an apprentice, but the apprentice would be a volunteer. No classes
would be held.
Hall asked why the Appellant needed two buildings. Fryer stated that kilns give off a lot of heat
and also pottery gives off sulphur compounds, which is not good to breathe in an enclosed area.
Miscio asked if the Appellant would have outside storage. Fryer stated no. Barnes stated that
there are numerous rules in the home occupation ordinance that the Apellant would have to
comply with, which has been explained to Fryer by Barnes.
ZBA...�y 8, 2003
Page 4
In Support of the Appeal:
Deb Dohrmann, 404 East Oak Street, addressed the Board and spoke in favor of the appeal.
Oppossed to the Appeal:
Erika Oversteg, 104 Peterson Street, addressed the Board. She was concerned with the
emissions, odors, and dust. She was also concerened that there was approved activity that did
not fit the neighborhood.
Board Discussion:
Hall was in favor of the appeal with the condition that the approval was for this property owner
and occupation. Remington and Dickson concurred with Hall. Donahue stated that there are a
lot of accessory buildings in the neighborhood, and the proposal would maintain that character.
The Board discussed how to address the appeal. Remington made a motion to approve appeal
2420 based on the equal to or better than standard for the following reasons: approval is not
detrimental to the public good, detached buildings exists in the neighborhood already, the
existing garage has been demolished, and the home occupation regulations will be met. The
purpose of the standard is that home occupation (as an accessory use) to permit self-employment
by the resident, and the impacts on the neighborhood are minimal. The proposal promotes the
general purpose of the standard by the demolition of the existing garage, the detached buildings
maintain the character of the neighborhood. The following conditions were placed on the
approval: this owner and this use. Donahue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Hall, Stockover, Remington, Donahue, Lingle, and Dickson.
Nays: Nays.
4. APPEAL NO.2421 -- Upheld
Address:
1320 West Prospect Road
Petitioner:
Whitney Cranshaw and Sue Ballou
Zone:
RL
Section:
2.11
Background:
The petitioner is appealing administrative interpretation #1-03 regarding the use classification of
the proposed recreational facility on property adjacent to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -
Day Saints (hereinafter LDS) at 1400 Lynnwood Drive in Fort Collins. The interpretation was
issued by Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes in response to a written request for a determination
as to whether the recreational facility is an accessory use or principal use. The resulting
interpretation #1-03 concluded that the proposed facility should be classified as an accessory use
to the LDS church. The petitioner believes the use should be classified as a principal use and is
therefore appealing the determination stated in interpretation #1-03.
ZBA May 8, 2003
Page 5
Staff Comments:
On March 27, 2003, Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes rendered a written interpretation
regarding the applicant's earlier request for an interpretation of elements of the city's Land Use
Code. Specifically, the applicant requested that staff render an interpretation that the proposed
recreational facility, including a baseball field, volleyball court, horseshoe pit, and picnic shelter
on property adjacent to the LDS Church at 1400 Lynwood Drive is a "principal use" rather than
an "accessory use". However, the Zoning Administrator, in the resulting written interpretation,
concluded that the recreation facility is considered to be an "accessory use". The applicant is
appealing this interpretation to the ZBA.
If the ZBA agrees with the applicant's assertion that the proposed facility is a principal use, then
the facility must be processed and approved through a Type 1 public hearing process. If the
ZBA agrees with the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, then no public hearing process is
required for the facility.
Board member's packets include:
1. The applicant's original request for an interpretation (Exhibit A),
2. The Zoning Administrator's administrative interpretation (Exhibit B),
3. The applicant's appeal to the ZBA of the administrative interpretation.
Staff will include a response to the applicant's appeal as part of the staff presentation at the May
8th meeting.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes gave the Board supplements that were not included in their packet information. The
property of the church is at 1400 Lynnwood Drive. The property consists of the church building,
a parking lot, and a green area. The abutting property at 1320 West Prospect Road is where the
LDS Church desires to construct a recreational facility consisting of a softball field, volleyball
court, horseshoe pits, and a picnic shelter. Barnes noted that the church property is surrounded
by dwellings. Barnes referred board members to the proposed site plan. Barnes noted that some
tree removal has been done. There currently are fences on the south lot line of the church and
along the rear lot lines of the houses that abut the church property.
Lingle asked if the lot in question has always been undeveloped. An audience member replied
yes and explained the history of the lot. Donahue asked if the bridge was an irrigation canal.
Barnes replied yes.
Barnes Presentation:
Barnes stated that the Applicant had four points in their appeal letter and responded to each
point. Barnes addressed the issue of two separate lots. The Appellant has indicated that an
accessory use by definition is ordinarily located on the same lot or premises as the building
ZBA ..y 8, 2003
Page 6
which generates the need for the accessory use. Barnes stated ordinarily means usually, and the
City has many types of accessory uses that are not on the same lot as the building where the use
is generated. Barnes stated the property could be re -platted into one lot or the church could also
have a lot line adjustment performed. Bames responded to his exclusive examples of churches
and if an accessory use is allowed to be located on a different lot than the use generating
building. The Appellants were also concerned with the accessory use being used by the entire
stake of the LDS Church. Barnes stated the congregation does not own the church. The facility
is shared by all of the members of the Fort Collins stake. The Appellant claimed that the original
use of the property was not to serve the entire Fort Collins stake. Barnes stated the claim was
unknown because the church was approved regardless of their activities for other LDS churches.
Barnes noted all commercial uses regardless of zoning district would have to go through a
stringent review process, and site plan approval would be required prior to obtaining a building
permit. Bames explained the levels of reviews.
Barnes responded to the issue of a separate subdivision. Barnes referred the Appellant to page 4
of his original administrative interpretation and stated he felt he addressed the issue. Barnes
noted that the plat does not set forth any setback requirements. Barnes stated that all required
setbacks will have to be met.
The Appellant noted that the use cannot be approved due to the lack of a site specific
development plan. Barnes noted that the lot on which the use is proposed to be located in a
platted lot in the Maxfield subdivision, which by definition is a site specific development plan.
Bames discussed the ball field, which is an accessory use to Bennett Elementary School. A
public hearing was not required because the ball field was a permitted accessory use. The ball
field is also in two different subdivisions.
Barnes presented slides that were relevant to the appeal and gave several examples of accessory
uses.
Applicant Participation:
Danielle Johnson, representative for Dr. Cranshaw and Ms. Ballou, addressed the Board. The
Cranshaw-Ballow home is located at 1400 West Lake Street, directly south of the LDS church
building. The property east to their lot was vacant. Johnson stated the intention of the proposed
recreational facility was to serve the Fort Collins area stake of the LDS church. The
neighborhood was not aware of the development until trees were being removed from the vacant
lot. The neighbors were provided with answers by the church that were substantially different
than what was represented to the City such as 200 people using the facility at one time, every
evening during the week and all day Saturday. Johnson stated she disagreed with the
terminology of an accessory use for the following reasons: (1) the property is located on a
separate lot and in an entirely different subdivision; (2) not out of the ordinary; and (3) accessory
use for churches was for parking. Johnson felt it was difficult to compare commercial uses with
this proposal due to the proposal being in a residential area, and stated there was also a difference
ZBA May 8, 2003
Page 7
between a parking lot and a recreational facility. Johnson stated the size, scope and intensity of
use was of concern to the neighbors. Johnson stated that neighbors should have received notice
and had an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Sue Ballou, 1400 West Lake Street, addressed the Board. Ballou stated that the church in the
past have been good neighbors. Ballou has heard several versions of the proposal and was
concerned with the trees being removed and the wildlife habitat that exists. Ballou was
concerned with all aspects of the project specifically the ball field and proposed intense use.
Ballou passed around pictures.
Board Questions:
Lingle had questions regarding the intensity of use and if the uses would have to go under review
if another entity were to have the same proposal as the church. Barnes referred board members
to their hand-outs of the RL zone uses and noted that uses such as neighborhood parks would not
require a public hearing.
Stockover asked if there were any setback guidelines for facilities in a public park. Barnes stated
that the Land Use Code does require setbacks to buildings, such as picnic shelters.
Rebuttals
Barnes responded to Johnson's comments. Barnes stated that his approval was based upon the
information received by the Church, and noted that there are not social gathering restrictions.
Notices were not sent out to the neighbors because the proposed use is use by right. Barnes
commented that several of his examples included neighboring residential situations such as
Woodward Governor.
Ballou commented that she wanted protection. Johnson responded to Barnes stating that some
level of review was needed for the proposal.
George Rhodes, 1406 Winfield Drive, representative for the LDS church addressed the Board.
Rhodes stated that he needed to communicate more effectively with the neighbors and gave his
phone number to them. Rhodes stated there is no professional ministry at the church, and in his
letter to Barnes he indicated the maximum usage. Rhodes explained the hierarchical structure of
the church. Rhodes also indicated that the use would be governed by a strict process and would
only be used by a single ward at one time. Possible times of recreation activity include Thursday
evenings and Saturday morning or afternoon. Rhodes stated it would be unusual if 200 people
frequented the facility at one time. Rhodes commented that the baseball diamond would be the
last item to be developed.
Lingle asked Rhodes if he has addressed the offer from the principal at the elementary school.
Rhodes responded that the proposal is focused on families with an intended casual use. If the
church were to use the school ball field the church would have to comply with the school's
ZBA - .y 8, 2003
Page 8
schedule and discretion. Rhodes stated that the church does not have immediate plans to develop
the ball field.
Opposed to the Appeal:
Bennie Maloney, 605 City Park Avenue, spoke in opposition to the appeal. Maloney's property
is compacted by the development. Maloney stated that the land has not been used in an
accessory way. Maloney noted a meeting was held at the church and was unsure of the plans.
Joann Evans, 1305 City Park Avenue, spoke in opposition to the appeal. Evans stated that the
church has been good neighbors, but she was concerned with the noise and the uncertainty of the
plans.
Rhodes spoke up and apologized for all of the confusing information. Rhodes stated that there
would not be any lights, bleachers or loud speakers. Rhodes reiterated that the use was for
families.
Whitney Cranshaw, 1400 West Lake Street, addressed the Board. Cranshaw stated that he felt
the project was large and should not be treated in a casual manner. The property was previously
a natural habitat for wildlife. Cranshaw felt the proposal would destroy property values and have
a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Board Discussion:
Miscio was concerned with the intensity of the use, but felt the issue had been addressed by Mr.
Rhodes. Dickson agreed with Miscio. There was a discussion held regarding how to make a
motion for the appeal. Eckman noted that the Board could impose conditions. Remington made
a motion to uphold the City's interpretation (#1-03). Remington placed a condition on the
approval that the ball field due to the lot configuration, proximity of the neighbors, and safety
issues not be allowed until further review was done. The Church and the Appellant would have
to return to the appropriate decision maker regarding the ball field. Dickson seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Remington, and Dickson.
Nays: Hall, Donahue, and Lingle.
5. Other Business
There was no other business.
Meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator