Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/09/2004FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — December 9, 2004 8:30 a.m. 11Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 I1Chairperson: William Stockover IlPhone: (H) 223-7138 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday December 9, 2004, 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 Dana McBride Andy Miscio William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Remington 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 and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hall made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2004 meeting. Donahue seconded the motion. The motion passed. ZBA December 9, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2490—Approved with conditions. Address: 430-500 Hemlock Street Petitioner: Aric Hanson Zone: CN&RC Section: 3.8.3(1), 3.8.3(3) Background: The variance would allow a detached building to be used in connection with a home occupation activity. Specifically, the variance would allow the home at 430 Hemlock to be used as the office for the owner's clothing business while allowing the existing warehouse building to be used for merchandise storage for the owner's four clothing stores. Retail sales do not occur on the premises. The variance would also allow more than 50% of the floor area of the dwelling unit to be used in connection with the business. 50% of the floor area is about 750 square feet, and the size of the existing warehouse is 5400 sq. ft. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This property is not zoned residential. The house is in the Commercial North College zone and the warehouse is in the River Conservation zone. The house and warehouse have historically been used for commercial operations, i.e. Padia Fertilizer Company. The home occupation use is an excellent use of the property and it is considerably less commercial in nature than previous uses. The use of the home for the business would not require a variance. It's just the use of the existing detached building that requires the variance. The building will be for storage only, so their will be very little activity on the site. The property is just over 2 acres in size. Staff Comments: It is unusual to find home occupations being conducted in commercial areas such as this. The intent of the home occupation regulations is to allow residents of a dwelling to conduct self- employment activities on the premises in a manner that protects the residential character of the neighborhood in which the home occupation activity is conducted. Since this property is located in a commercial area, the character of the "neighborhood" is not truly residential. Therefore, with regards to the uniqueness of this property, the purpose of the standard is promoted equally well as a plan that would comply, and the residential character of the neighborhood is not diminished. Staff Presentation: Barnes noted that in the past the Board heard variance requests for individuals who desired to use an existing detached building in connection with a home occupation activity. Barnes commented that the previous requests usually involved properties in the Old Town neighborhoods where the historic character of the development consisted of a house on the front portion on the lot, a deep ZBA December 9, 2004 Page 3 lot with alley access, and a detached garage near the alley. Typically, an individual requested to convert the detached garage into a home occupation use. In the past, the Board granted the variance requests when the detached building was a pre-existing condition. According to Barnes, the Board found it difficult to approve variance requests when an applicant proposed to construct a new detached garage. Barnes commented that the variance request was to use an existing detached building that consisted of 5400 square feet. The property was nearly two acres in size but within two different zoning districts. The proposal would be to use the existing house and the large warehouse building for storage of clothing inventory. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. According to Barnes, two properties were involved with the variance request, although the properties were under the same ownership. The property was recently purchased and platted as the Padia subdivision. The Padia subdivision consisted of two lots (430 and 500 Hemlock Street). Historically, the detached building was used for commercial purposes and contained within the RC zone. The RC zone, a limited zoning district, allowed few commercial uses. Barnes commented that commercial redevelopment of the property would be difficult due to the existing zoning. The house was located in the CN zone (Commercial North College). The rear of the property faced Hickory Street. Barnes displayed the commercial nature of the surrounding properties. A lot full of cars existed in an adjacent property, which Barnes wanted the Applicant to address. Dickson asked staff if the petitioner inherited the lot full of cars. Barnes replied yes. Dickson wanted clarification on why the Applicant needed a variance request. Barnes stated that a detached building could not be used for home occupation activity. The office was in the house, but the Applicant proposed to use the warehouse building in connection with his home business. Barnes commented on the difficulty of redeveloping the property to a commercial use and noted that it was easier if the property remained residential in nature. Applicant Participation: Ed Stoner, 5 Old Town Square, Suite 216, Fort Collins, representative for the home owner, Aric Hanson, addressed the Board. Stoner remarked that Hanson was out of town. Stoner brought the property owner's niece and his manager. According to Stoner, the property was purchased approximately three months ago. Padia used to store landscape materials on the property as well as allowing individuals to store junk cars on the property. Stoner stated that arrangements have been made to clear the cars off of the property. Hanson, according to Stoner, intended to clean up the property. Stoner introduced Cassandra Holden, Hanson's niece. Holden stated that she lived on the property. Holden commented on the activity on the property and noted that UPS only came out three days a month. The traffic on the property was minimal. Holden said that her family had four retail clothing stores, three of which are in Old Town. Hanson bought the property because he no longer wanted to process his retail items in a garage and he desired to have a warehouse. Holden noted that the entire family was disappointed because they were not able to use the warehouse for processing. ZBA December 9, 2004 Page 4 Miscio wanted the Applicant to clarify the hardship. Miscio felt that the hardship may be self- imposed. Stoner replied that the property owner wanted to improve the property rather than allow the warehouse to remain empty. Barnes remarked that the self-imposed hardship only came into play when the Applicant used the hardship standard. Barnes informed the Board that the request could be approved under the equal to or better than standard. Barnes explained the purpose of regulating home occupation activity. Barnes commented that the property had unique circumstances such as the property not existing in a residential neighborhood, and the proposed use of the property had less of an impact than the previous use. McBride asked Barnes how difficult it would be to change the zoning district and why the Applicant was unable to use a portion of the property for his home occupation activity. Barnes stated that the Applicant would have to file for a change of use and bring the property into compliance with the Land Use Code. The Applicant currently used the property for his residence and would like to conduct his business out of his home. Stoner commented that the surrounding area consisted of mixed uses and open space. Board Discussion: Stockover was in favor of the variance request because he felt the proposal had a minimal impact. He remarked that the area was essentially commercial in nature with the exception of the mobile home park. Donahue agreed with Stockover. Stockover wanted a condition placed on the approval that the request was for this business and property owner only. Donahue asked staff that if the garage were attached would a variance be required. Barnes stated that the size of the detached garage would require a variance request, but if the garage were attached a variance request would not be necessary. Barnes noted that the Applicant wanted to take advantage of the existing buildings on the property. The Board discussed using the equal to or better than standard for approving the variance request. Stockover noted that the proposal met the intent of the code by the property being in a commercial zoning district. Hall agreed with Stockover. Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2490 based on the equal to or better than standard and noted that there was no detriment to the public good. The proposal met the purpose of the standard by existing in a commercial zoning district and the detached building existed prior to the purchase of the property. Stockover said that the home occupation activity was a better fit than redeveloping the property into a commercial zone. The impact of the home occupation activity was minimal. Stockover placed a condition on the approval that the request was limited to the proposed use and current property owner, Aric Hanson. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Stockover, Dickson, Donahue, and Hall. Nays: None. 3. APPEAL NO. 2491—Tabled until the January 13, 2005 meeting. ZBA December 9, 2004 Page 5 Address: 815 East Mulberry Street Petitioner: Mark Beaner Zone: CL Section: 3.8.7(G)(2) Backeround The Petitioner is requesting that a ground sign be installed to within 2.5 feet from the east interior side lot line. The code requires that no such sign shall be installed within 15 feet of any interior side lot line. The sign will replace the existing ground sign that is approximately in the same location as the new, proposed sign will be. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship By installing the sign 15' from the interior side lot line the sign would be placed within the drive isle contracting and preventing vehicles from being parked in at least a couple of parking stalls. Any further distances would cause the both drive isle and curb cut access to be partially blocked. The lot is 100 feet wide. Staff Comments Staff believes that a hardship does exist in that this property already exists and it would be difficult to comply with the standard without eliminating parking or a curb cut. There is an existing sign at approximately the same location as proposed for the new sign. The Board granted a similar variance for the existing sign on December 10, 1987. Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal and noted that staff was surprised to see the existing sign. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance in 1987 for the current sign. Barnes noted that the new sign will be 2 %z feet in height. The Board discussed whether or not to discuss the appeal due to the Applicant's absence. The Board wanted to be informed of the Applicant's intentions. Donahue made a motion to table Appeal 2491 until the January 13, 2005 meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Stockover, Dickson, Donahue, and Hall. Nays: None. 4. Other Business Barnes stated that he sent a calendar of the 2005 Zoning Board of Appeal meetings to the board members. Barnes noted that there will be two breakfast meetings with one being in February. ZBA December 9, 2004 Page 6 Barnes mentioned that the December meeting was Stockover's last one because he was term limited. Barnes informed the Board that City Council was conducting interviews for board vacancies. Election of Officers Miscio made a motion to nominate Hall for chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Stockover, Dickson, Donahue, and Hall. Nays: None. Stockover made a motion to nominate Dickson for vice -chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Stockover, Dickson, Donahue, and Hall. Nays: None. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m. Dwight Hall, Chairp son I - yrc..4-7 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator l 13 /0y