Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/10/1994E ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 10, 1994 Regular Meeting 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 10, 1994 in the Coucil Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Breth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Michelena, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Absent: Perica. The meeting was called to order by Board chairman Huddleson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Stapp Support Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Ann Chantler Peter Barnes Paul Eckman Appeal 2219, 925 West Oak Street, by Douglas and Denise Newberry, approved. Section 29-119(5). ----- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5 feet to 416" in order to allow the existing enclosed porch to be removed and an addition constructed to the rear of the building, lining up with the existing east wall of the house which is already only 416" from the property line. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is narrow, only 40' wide. The addition will line up with the existing wall of the home. The home is small, and additional space is desired. Staff Comments: None Zoning Adminstrator Peter Barnes stated this home is located in an older part of town. The lot was platted with 40' of width and the side of the home is only 4.5' from the side lot line. Mr. Barnes stated some lots in this area of town are 40' wide and some are 50' wide. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 2 Board member Gustafson stated the hardship appeared to be the narrowness of the lot. Board member Shannon moved to approve appeal 2119 for the hardship stated. Board member Breth seconded the motion. Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Michelena, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2120, 509 E. Olive by Steve Vandermeer and Ann Turnquist, aproved. Section 29-167(4). ----- The variance would reduce the rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15' to 5' in order to allow a new detached two -car garage to be constructed. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A new utility ease- ment is being established behind the house on the lot. This means that the garage cannot be shifted to the north in order to maintain a larger rear setback. Building the garage elsewhere, or attaching the garage to the home, would require the removal of considerable amounts of mature landscaping and trees. No additional land is available to buy from the adjacent lot because that lot would then contain less lot area than required. ----- Staff Comments: The Board has determined in the past that large, mature trees are part of the topography of the lot. Topography can be considered a contributing factor for a hardship. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this lot was 87'X551, and is considered a small lot. The lot was orginally owned by the church and split up. A new private utility easement is being installed right behind the house. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. One letter was received from Rochelle S. Stephens, Executive Director of the Housing Auhtority in favor of this appeal. Board member Breth stated the landscape was a hardship and the lot was small. Board chairman Huddleson stated the utility easement dictated where the new garage has to go and the landscape was a hardship. 0 w Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 3 Board member Michelena moved to approve Appeal 2120 for the hardship stated. Board member Breth seconded the motion. Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Michelena, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2121, 3622 Richmond Drive by Margaret Gorman and Todd Rogers. Staff determination was upheld. ---- The applicant is appealing a staff determination. Specifically, the applicant believes that staff incorrectly decided that Mr. Bill Trippel has a legal nonconforming home occupation use for Reliable Drywall which pre -dates the 1986 annexation of his property at 3622 Richmond Drive. ----- Staff Comments: Staff believes that the level of business activity which Mr. Trippel has documented as having occured at his home prior to the 1986 annexation constituted a home occupation. If the property had been in the City in 1981 when Mr. Trippel bought the home, we would have required him to obtain a home occupation license at that time. As defined in the Code, a home occupation shall mean "an occupation or business activity which results in a product or service and is conducted in whole or in part in a dwelling unit, and is subordinate to the residential use of the dwelling unit." Based on the information that Mr. Trippel has supplied to staff, it certainly appears that there was, and still is, a business activity occuring, at least in part, on the premises. The activity consists of taking phone calls, preparing bid proposals, and customer visitation to the home. All of this activity results in a service of drywall installation. It is not uncommon for construction -related service businesses to have some or all of their office functions conducted from the home of the owner of the business. We have issued at least 25 home occupation licenses to individuals in the last year who use their home in connection with such businesses as: electrical contracting, plumbing contracting, handyman, tile installation, general contracting and construction, carpentry, and drywall installation. Therefore, it is not unusual to classify Mr. Trippel's business activity as a home occupation. In fact, it is quite routine. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 4 It appears that the only manner in which Mr. Tripple has changed the way he conducts business is in the way he advertises in the yellow pages. That certainly doesn't mean that the activity which has or is occuring at his home is any different in character. As I mentioned in my letter to Mrs. Gorman on September 7, 1994 (see packet) this is no different than a streamstress who has been working out of her home for the last 20 years, suddenly deciding to put an ad in the yellow pages this year for the very first time. The presence of the seamstress ad suddenly appearing does not mean that the business has been recently established or changed in character. The same types of business activities still occur at the seamtress home before and after the ad. Since Mr. Trippel's home business activity has not changed in characher since 1981, staff would classify the use the same today as it was 13 years ago. This means that if it was a home occupation in 1981, it is still a home occupation today, and if it was not a home occupation in 1981, then it is not one today. Mrs. Gorman's attorney, Todd Rogers, alleges in his letter that the drywall business has expanded its operation at 3622 Richmond Drive because the corporation's ad in the yellow pages is different than it has historically been. As mentioned earlier, the fact that a business decides to advertise differently does not translate to a change in character of the type of business activity that has historically occured from the home. True, there may be a few home occupations that may experience increased phone calls over the years. That does not change the character of the activity. The letter also mentions that outside storage of business -related materials and the parking of large business related vans or trucks have occured well after 1986. My on - site inspection of the property on September 12, 1994 revealed no such storage. If there was outside storage prior to my inspection, this indeed would have been a violation if such storage was not occuring prior to the 1986 annexation. If such a violation had existed, it has now been corrected, and Mr. Trippel has been advised that he is not permitted to use the property in such a manner. My September 20, 1994 letter clearly sets forth the limits of the business activities that are permitted to occur at 3622 Richmond Drive. These activities are those which Mr. Trippel has demonstrated were occuring prior to 1986. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 5 Board member Breth excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Zoning Adminstrator Peter Barnes distributed materials to all parties involved as well as the Board members. Mr. Barnes stated this was not a variance but a request the petitioner is appealling a staff determination. Mr. Barnes stated that 3622 Richmond was annexed into the City in 1986 and is zoned RE, Estate Residental. The RE zone does not allow home occupations. He added that since this business was in existence prior to 1986 it constitutes a legal, non -conforming use. Mr. Barnes determined that this drywall business did comply with the definition of a home occupation license. Mr. Barnes stated he got a complaint from Mrs. Gorman in August and made a site visit to 3622 Richmond Drive. He then sent a letter to Mrs. Gorman stating his findings. He determined Mr. Trippel purchased his property in 1981 and did "in -part" some of his business from his home. Mr. Barnes had letters submitted from local contractors stating they had done business with Mr. Trippel since 1981 at the Richmond address. They stated they had telephoned him there and at times dropped off blue prints. Mr. Barnes also had a copy of a 1985 bid with the Richmond phone number, verifiying Mr. Trippel had been doing business before 1986 when this property was annexed into the City. Mr. Barnes stated in a recent ad in the yellow pages that the Richmond address appears, and that the address didn't appear prior to this time. Mr. Barnes stated there is nothing in the code stating that when a home occupation changes the way it advertises that it changes the character of the business. Mr. Barnes submitted to the Board a computer list of all home occupation licenses similar to Mr. Trippel's that have been issued inthe last year. Mr. Barnes said Reliable Drywall has a storage warehouse on Sherry Drive that has been there for years. Mr. Barnes stated he inspected the property at 3622 Richmond Drive. He walked the entire site and did not find any outside storage of business supplies, nor any stoarge in any of the out buildings. He also saw no evidence of business signs or business activity on the street. Mr. Todd Rogers, attorney for Mrs. Gorman appeared before the Board. He submitted to the Board a plat and copy of the neighborhood convenant. He also submitted a print out from the County Assessor's office of Mr. Trippel's residence and snapshots of the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Rogers stated Mrs. Gorman has lived in her house over 30 years. The history of the neighborhood was residental and farming only. He stated what prompted Mrs. Gorman to file a complaint was that Mr. Trippel recently started storing his company van in the back of his property as well as other business junk. One of Mrs. Gorman's concerns is that now that Mr. Tripple has advertised his address in the yellow pages more customers may be coming to the house and that would cause parking and traffic problems. Paul Eckman stated this was a "grandfather" issue. The Board needs to decide prior to 1986, when this property was annexed into the City, was this a pre-existing, non -conforming use and does it continue to be presently. Board member Michelena stated this was a service business, that being drywall, Mr. Trippel probably goes to the location to do the work. Board member Shannon asked Mr. Rogers if the complaint was the yellow pages ad or the storage of vehicles in the yard. Mr. Rogers stated Mrs. Gorman would address that. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated all supplies at the house meet regulations, the only issue could be the yellow pages ad. Mrs. Gorman addressed the Board. She stated she lived in her house for 30 years and just recently noticed the business next door started to change. The storage of a step van was an issue. No one was present in support of this appeal. Mr. Trippel and his attorney, Lucia Liley, appeared before the Board in opposition. Mr. Trippel stated he had lived in his home since August 1981 and the same activity he did for the business then, he still does today. 629 Sherry Drive has been the storage and main office location for Reliable Drywall since that time. He stated his partner and wife had seperated and because of that the address was changed to Richmond Drive in the advertising. Mr. Trippel referred to other businesses held in private homes in the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 7 Lucia Liley stated the City code states that if an area is annexed into the City and a home occupation was there then, by law it can remain. She stated the issue of whether this was or is a home occupation is not even the issue, the issue is whether this is a non -conforming use and that there has been no change since 1986. She submitted to the Board three letters from neighbors stating they had not seen any change in the business over the years. She continued by saying just because now the Richmond address appears in the Yellow Pages, does not change the type of use, there has been no enlargement of the business, and nothing has impacted the neighborhood. Mr. Trippel submitted photos of the neighborhood. Board member Michelena stated this was a non -conforming use and that the fear that Mr. Trippel may expand his business is not what the Board is looking at today. He further stated if things change at this address, then Mr. Barnes is to be notified and deal with it then. Mr. Barnes stated that parking cannot be an issue, no parking lot is allowed under the home occupation ordiance. Board member Gustafson stated it appeared that Mr. Trippel had used his home for a business office and continues to do so. If Mr. Trippel moves, no other business can go into the home and he supported Mr. Barnes decision. Board member Gustafson moved to support the decision made by Mr. Barnes in the letter dated September 20, 1994 to Mrs. Gorman. The motion was seconded by Board member Cuthbertson. Yeas: Gustafson, Huddleson, Michelena, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2122 1820 West Mulberry Street by Tom Lloyd, approved. Section 29-119(4). ----- The variance would reduce the required rear yard set- back from 15 feet to 2 feet for an addition to an exisitng detached two -car garage. The 8 foot wide addition will line up with the existing rear wall of the garage, which is already at a 2 foot setback. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The garage is already only 2 feet from the property line and backs up to City Park Golf Course. An exisitng ditch and the slope of the land, prevent the addition from being pulled forward. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 8 ----- Staff Comments: none Zoning Adminstrator Peter Barnes stated the house does back up to the golf course and is set back from the street. The ditch and the slope are a hardship. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Breth moved to approve this appeal for the hardship stated. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Huddleson, Michelena, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2123, 500 Linden Street by Bill Stashak for the Keenan Co., approved. Section 29-403(b). The variance would reduce the required 50' wide land- scape buffer strip along Buckingham Road to 24 feet for the proposed New Belgium Micro-Brewy building. Petitioner's statement of hardship: A 20 ft. wide irrigation ditch bisects the property, requiring the building to be located on the north side of the ditch, Most of the parking will be south of the ditch, but there is not enough room to provide parking and the 50' buffer. The City will not allow another curb cut on Linden, so there are not many parking lot configurations available. The building will be more than 100 feet from the road and will have considerable landscape buffer around it. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this also was dealing with a ditch. The plans submitted are to make the ditch an attractive part of the entryway. Mr. Stashak addressed the Board. He submitted a color plan of the proposed project. He stated they would like to widen the ditch and put a bridge over it to make it part of the landscape and an attractive entryway. No one was present in favor or in oppostion of this appeal. Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1994 Page 9 Board member Gustafson stated the ditch did appear to pose a problem and liked the idea of using the ditch to make an attractive entryway. Board member Breth made a motion that this appeal be granted for the hardship stated, with the condition that the site plan submited today be similar to the one used for application for a building permit, no more parking area less than 24' provided that the reduction from 501to 24' landscape setback be limited to the east side of the south parking lot and graduate to 50' going northwest. Board member Gustafson seconded the moiton. Yeas: Breth, Gustafson, Michelena, Shannon, Cuthbertson. Nayes: None. The motion passed. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned. AAA Chuck Huddleson, Chair Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin