Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/12/1998ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING March 12, 1998 8:30am II Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes ]I Diane The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 12, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Gustafson, Stockover, Lieser, Shannon, Sibbald, Gustafson Absent: Breth Staff Present: Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Carol Goff, Karen Bross, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Staff absent: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon. The minutes from the December 1997 meeting were approved. Appeal 2211, 3024 W. Prospect Rd. Petitioner: Owner: Charles Spengler, Zone: RL --- The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building and would allow more than one additional non-resident employee/co- worker. Specifically, the applicant desires to construct a 912 s.f addition to the existing detached building at the rear of the lot and primarily use the new addition for his "clean room design" business, with 2 non-resident co-workers instead of the one allowed. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Due to the nature of the business, it is necessary to have a large, open -room area to do layouts and backdrops for video taping. Additionally, this area needs to be located a considerable distance from Prospect Road due to the need for a quiet environment that is necessary for this type of business. The home doesn't have a room with high enough ceilings to be suitable for use, and the home is too close to Prospect to provide the quiet needed. ZBA March 12, 1998 page 2 --- Staff comments: Both of the adjacent properties have received permission to allow home occupations in detached buildings. The one to the west was grand fathered in at the time of annexation. The one to the east, Choice Roofing, received a zoning variance in 1986 to allow the construction of a detached building to be used for a home occupation. Across the street on the south side of Prospect is a car wash, 7-eleven, and a gas station. Lopez presented slides illustrating the property in question. He explained that the existing building does meet side setbacks but not the rear setbacks. He stated a horse barn or shed is being proposed to be torn down. The proposed three car garage, which will be attached to existing building, will meet current setbacks. The new building will be off -set to meet minimum 15 ft. rear yard setback. Lopez stated that the properties to both the West and East of the appellant's property have home occupations. Choice roofing to the East received a variance to construct their building. He stated that directly across the street is a "7-11 store" and car wash. BOARD QUESTIONS: Board member Shannon asked if the variance was just to have an additional employee permitted Lopez replied that it was for two things: One of the requirements of the home occupation is that it has to be conducted entirely within the principal residence or dwelling. He stated that in this instance the business will be in an accessory building, so they are asking for a variance to allow that. Lopez explained that issue two is that the appellant has two employees that do not live at the site. The other requirement of the home occupation is that there can be no more than one employee other than the homeowner. Shannon asked what was the parking situation. Lopez stated that there appears to be plenty of parking in the back as well as on the side of the property. Shannon asked if there were any comments from neighbors Lopez stated that no, he hadn't seen any. Lopez stated to the Board that this was the first variance requesting another employee. Applicant, Charles Spengler, owner. Spengler stated he simply needs some more room, and that he wants to finish the landscaping, the building, tear down old structure and improve the property. Board member Leiser stated that on the original explanation of variance it asked for an addition for a clean room design. She stated the design shows three garage doors. She asked how that works into Spengler's business. Spengler responded that his company designs clean rooms for companies all over the country. He explained that the clean rooms they design are primarily used for biotech, biomedical application, and lots of veterinary application. He stated the clean rooms he designs are virus and bacteria free, and are used for veterinary surgery and veterinary drug development. He explained that his company designs a lot of this on CAD, or build up a prototype, then video tape ZBA March 12, 1998 page 3 the prototype and then send the designs to the customer. He stated that most of his business is the east and west coast. He stated that when his company does the video taping they need the larger building. He explained that the garage doors are used for solar heat. The doors open in the winter and have a clear vinyl front and actually heats the structure. Board member Gustafson asked Spengler if he manufactures these clean rooms, or if they are they just mock-up and if they are scale or fall size Spengler responded that they only are mock up. And if his company can not build a prototype, they build a scale model. He went on to say that there is considerable amount of training they need to supply to the customer, that is why they do the videotaping. He stated that also some of his customers request video tapes on how to use existing clean rooms that his company didn't necessarily design. Spengler stated he also does some still photography. Gustafson asked if there were instances of client parking there. Spengler responded they do no retail business, but they might have a customer come in once a year. BOARD DISCUSSION: Board member Sibbald stated he will not support the appeal for the following reasons: He felt this was injecting more commercial development along a currently zoned residential area, and there are commercial improvements being made to a residential area without supporting the infrastructure. He stated it was not keeping with existing zoning of the property. Sibbald felt that there are reasons for setting up home occupation rules. He stated a Home Occupation limits the number of employees, and it is to be conducted in the primary residence. Sibbald felt if the structure was allowed to be built it should not be permitted with garage doors, or else the property ends up with eight garages. Leiser agreed with Sibbald on the garage door question, and stated it looks like a lot a garages. She stated that she doesn't want to start a precedence of additional employees in a Home Occupation, since the intent of the code was to have one person working out of their home because they weren't big enough to operate anywhere else. Gustafson stated he felt the reason for home occupation rules is parking in neighborhoods. He felt Spengler had plenty of parking that won't impact the neighborhood, because the way he operates business, there are very few people coming and going. He stated that since it is not a retail use, the Board might want to put a condition that it does not become a retail type use that could pose a traffic problem. Sibbald stated that he felt once the building is built it is not going to be in his ownership forever, and once it's built there is no control on what's being built without adequate public facilities along Prospect Rd. to support the commercial development. He stated that whether there is minimal use now or in the future, it is adding potentially the cost of somebody else, other that the person that profiting from the use, to put in the improvements some point down the road. Board member Stockover asked Lopez since Spengler could build the building, the Board is just asking for the use of the building. He also asked if Spengler wanted to use the building for boat ZBA March 12, 1998 page 4 storage he could do that. Lopez stated that was correct. Shannon agreed with Sibbald that this does enhance the commercialization of this strip, however the entire row is commercial, even though it is in -home and the zoning is essentially residential. Sibbald stated that builders and developers are putting in adequate public facilities all over the City, and they are the guys who play by the rules pay their fair share. He stated the next guy that comes along will pay higher fees because they have to include public facilities along Prospect Rd. that are currently not being put in to commercialize this neighborhood. Gustafson stated he doesn't see a problem. The variance would not be creating more commercial traffic, there is already property on each side of Spengler's and 7-11 that create traffic. Gustafson also stated that Prospect is becoming quite commercialized. Stockover wondered what was the intend of Overland and Prospect intersection in City Plan. Lopez responded he doesn't believe there's any commercial proponents going in. He believed that they are not going to commercialize that corner. Stockover stated that commercial is creeping, and that area is under re -development with new development. He stated that no one is paying to upgrade the street, nor paving a parking lot and all the things that go along with a commercial development. He felt the Board would be bending the rules to allow more employees than the current code allows. Stockover stated that Spengler has the right to an in -home business, but if the Board starts allowing extra employees and starts breaking the rules that goes against the intent of the code. Sibbald asked if anything was stopping this applicant from applying for commercial zoning, and going through a change of zoning on a property. Lopez responded that was correct, but the Planning department does not spot -zone properties. Gustafson made a motion to approve Appeal #2211 for the home occupation and allow two additional employees with the condition that parking for employees is located at the back of the residence. Sibbald seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson Nays: Lieser, Stockover, Shannon, Sibbald The motion to approve the variance failed, therefore the appeal is not approved. ZBA March 12, 1998 page 5 Appeal 2212, 821 LaPorte Ave. Petitioner: Owner: Edward & Sylvia Miller, Zone: NCL --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback from the west lot line from 5 ft. to 3' 9" in order to allow the existing enclosed back porch to be removed and a new enclosed porch built in its place. The existing porch is already at a 3' 9" setback and the new one will be rebuilt on the existing foundation and extend 5' to the south. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing porch is settling and pulling away form the house. If the new addition were moved 15" east, the it would be difficult to use the existing door and stairway, and would require reworking of the existing 18" stone foundation wall of the house. The porch will be 3' 9" from the property line, lining up with the location of the existing porch, but the house is only 3' from the lot line, so the addition will be setback more than the house. Also, the lot is narrow. --- Staff comments: None. Lopez presented slides illustrating the property in question. He stated that the house is closer to the west side than to the east side of the property. He showed the porch that needs to be removed. Lopez had asked the applicant to just discontinue the existing foundation, but then it was discovered that there are steps going down and that foundation becomes a retaining wall for the steps going down to the basement. Lopez initially thought the applicant could move it over five feet, but again will not work with the steps going to the basement. He stated that there is no foundation on the other side, which explains why it's pulling away from the building. Board Questions: none Appellant, Sylvia Miller stated the major problem is the stairs, and the foundation wall is right there, so the stairway can not be moved. She explained if they could come right straight out it would really help to put a new back porch on. She also stated that they would like have it go with the historical house they live in, and are trying to fix up Board Discussion: Shannon stated that this is a situation the Board has dealt with many times, with the hardship of a narrow lot, an existing structure, and existing foundation. She stated she doesn't have any problems. ZBA March 12, 1998 page 6 Gustfason made a motion to approve Appeal 2212 for the hardship stated and no conditions. Stockover seconded the motion. 1TOYsA Yeas: Gustafson, Lieser, Stockover, Shannon, Sibbald Nays: none The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m. Diane Shannon, Chairperson