HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/14/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — June 14, 2007
8:30 a.m.
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson lStaff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760)
Chairperson: Dwight Hall
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 14, 2007 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:
Ron Daggett
Robert Donahue
Dwight Hill
Dana McBride
Andy Miscio
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Alison Dickson
Jim Pisula
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, 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:
Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 10, 2007 meeting as revised.
Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Miscio
Nays:
Abstain: Hill & McBride
3. APPEAL NO. 2577 — Approved with Condition
Address: 1825 E. Harmony Road
Petitioner: Debbie Condojana-Meador
Zone: HC
Section: 3.8.4 (A)
Background:
The variance would allow a Drop -in Child Care Center to locate in the building without the
need to provide an outdoor play area. This particular child care center is different than
traditional child care centers in that it only provides care for children who are dropped off for
short, occasional care (similar to baby sitting).
ZBA June 14, 2007— Page 2
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments:
Staff recommends that Appeals 2577 and 2578 be discussed together since the issues are
identical. After discussion, separate motions and votes for each appeal will be required. The
State child care center regulations were recently amended to exempt drop -in centers from
the State's outdoor play area requirement. However, the City's requirement to provide such
an outdoor area still applies. Therefore, a variance is necessary in order to waive the need
for a play area.
The "hardship" standard probably can't be applied since there's nothing unique about the
property. The nominal, inconsequential standard may also be difficult to apply. Therefore,
the Board probably needs to find that the proposal satisfies the purpose of the outdoor play
area standard "equally well or better than" a proposal that has an outdoor play area.
The purpose of the standard is to ensure that children who daily or regularly attend a child
care center have adequate opportunity for exercise, and with regards to this standard, the
exercise is to be provided outdoors as well as indoors. The proposed drop -in center,
however, is not a facility where children can attend on a daily or regular basis, therefore, the
need for outdoor play activities can and should be provided during the other days of the week
when a child is not at the drop -in center. While the State does not require an outdoor area,
they do require that a drop -in center provide large enough indoor play and exercise areas to
provide children with the opportunity for exercise and games. The Board may find that the
purpose of the standard, to provide facilities for exercise and games, is satisfied equally well
since provision is made for indoor exercise activities, which are adequate to accommodate
the drop -in nature of the center.
Staff Presentation:
Staff originally recommended that Appeals 2577 and 2578 be discussed together since the
issues are identical; however, since making application Appeal 2578 had been withdrawn
and only Appeal 2577 will be considered.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The proposed site is south of Harmony and
west of Timberline in what is now a convenience shopping center just west of Cinemark
Theaters. The building was originally constructed as an industrial and warehouse use. To
the west of the building are the railroad tracks. The space faces Harmony and there is very
little landscaping or opportunities for outdoor play areas in the complex. The State child care
center regulations were amended to exempt drop -in centers from the State's outdoor play
area requirement; however, the City's requirement to provide an outdoor area still applies. A
variance is therefore necessary in order to waive the need for a play area.
Hall asked if the City's code was similar to the State's. Barnes responded that it is not totally
in sync with State regulations noting some differences. The State does licensing and
inspection of the facilities; they also license the operators.
Miscio asked for clarification of the state requirements as relates to the City's building and
fire requirements. Barnes responded that in the past the State has required the applicant to
meet local building and fire regulations before a State license is issued.
ZBA June 14, 2007— Page 3
Applicant Participation:
Debbie Condojana-Meador, 10841 Crossroads Drive, # 6, Parker, CO 80134 owns and
operates a number of drop -in, child care businesses throughout the State. The business fills
a niche for families as it offers a place for occasional care not to exceed 15 hours a week. In
addition to days, the center is open evenings and weekends. It suits family needs on an
emergency basis or as a convenient drop -in while they run errands or go to dinner.
Melinda Sheehan-Carcamp, 10841 Crossroads Drive, # 6, Parker, CO 80134, is the regional
operations director. Sheehan-Carcamp noted there's a safety and logistical need to provide
play activities solely indoors in a drop -in center. Unlike the traditional child care center where
staff work with the same children for extended periods of time; the drop -in center has a mix —
variability in number of children, different child care durations (15 minute to 6 hours,) a
different mix of children from day to day, and various drop -in and check out times.
Logistically it is safer to provide for the physical and educational needs of the children in an
inside, open play area that's divided by theme play areas. The State agrees and has
changed the requirements in that regard.
Attorney Eckman asked how the States knows if you are complying with all drop -in
requirements? Staff keeps logs and the State conducts surprise audits. Condojana-Meador
said they operate as if they will be inspected. The director also monitors logs and works with
families to keep them within the licensing requirements —not to exceed fifteen hours per
week. Eckman asked if there was a pricing -structure that encourages families to stay within
those guidelines. Sheehan-Carcamp responded it is $7.50 per hour.
Miscio asked how large the facility would be. Condojana-Meador responded it would is
2,300 square feet for 40 children. Further Condojana-Meador explained that toddlers are
kept separate from older children and are separated by a plexi-glass divider that promotes
natural light and visibility.
McBride asked if the only natural light was from the store -front windows. Condojana-Meador
responded there's lots of ways to let natural light in. Besides the natural light source from the
front windows, the areas are well lit and have white walls with bright colored murals. They've
received comments that it's bright, cheery and clean.
Daggett asked Condojana-Meador if she was responsible for operations. She responded
she owns five centers in addition to overseeing 3-4 franchises. She's more involved than the
normal corporate owner. She helps owners and directors. The regional director also helps
the various drop -in centers offering advice on operations and staff training.
Board Discussion:
Miscio remarked that if this variance was granted, he had reservations about setting
precedence —eliminating the standard for outdoor play areas for other day care centers.
Barnes says future requests would be considered on a site -only basis with variances allowed
for hardship, equal to or better than, or nominal/inconsequential circumstances.
Donahue said that in this location, for health and safety reasons, it would be better for the
children to remain inside.
ZBA June 14, 2007— Page 4
McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2577 because the granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will
promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a proposal
which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. In addition, the
approval is specific to this location and is for use of a short-term drop -in care facility as
opposed to a traditional (all -day) center. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hill, McBride, Miscio
Nays:
4. APPEAL NO. 2578 — WITHDRAWN
5. APPEAL NO.
2579 — Approved with Condition
Address:
319 S. Grant
Petitioner:
Charles Robinson
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.7(E)(4)
Background:
The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to
2 feet in order to allow a 12' x 20' addition to the east side of the existing detached garage.
The 12' expansion will line up with the existing south wall of the garage, which is already at a
2 foot setback.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing garage is only 18' in depth, which is not large enough to accommodate the
length of most vehicles. The garage walls are constructed with brick and are about 1' thick,
which reduces the inside dimension even further. The addition will allow adequate size to
accommodate vehicles and storage of other items. The garage on the abutting lot is at a 1'
setback, extending at least the full length of the petitioner's existing garage and proposed
addition. Therefore, there will be no negative impact imposed on the lot most affected by the
variance request.
Staff Comments:
None.
Staff Presentation:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is on the west side of South
Grant between Olive & Magnolia. The proposed garage would have a 12 foot extension that
follows the existing structure along a 2 foot setback. It would line up with his adjacent
neighbor's garage; and, in fact, it would be four feet short of his neighbor's garage which was
built at a 1 foot setback. Mr. Robinson has spoken to Building Services staff and
understands fire code requirements for structures built that close to each other.
Applicant Participation:
Charles Robinson, 319 S. Grant has lived in the home for many years. The garage, built in
1924, was built for small (model-t type cars) and does not lend itself well to today's cars.
Additionally, he'd like to add some storage space. He'd like to preserve the architectural
style of the current structure as much as possible.
ZBA June 14, 2007— Page 5
Hall asked if it was his intention to use brick for the addition. Robinson said he'd like to have brick
on the lower 3 feet. There are issues related to cost and matching the brick that make it very
difficult to do otherwise. He's exploring recycled brick or brick veneer.
Mcbride asked if the affected neighbor had any problem with the expansion. Robinson said no. In
fact, the neighbor (Dwight King, who resides at 323 S. Grant, was present to lend support for the
variance.) Barnes asked Robinson for his assessment of how much neighbors would be
impacted. Robinson responded that there are trees on both sides of the lot so there's very little
visibility of the garage except from the alley, and since the neighbors garage is longer than his will
be with the addition, the side of his garage that would be at a 2' setback, will not be visible to
anyone.
Dwight King, 323 S. Grant, spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that he owns the property
directly abutting Mr. Robinson's lot and is the only person affected by the request. Since the
addition will still be obscured from his sight, he has no objections.
Board Discussion:
Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2579 for the following reasons the granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way 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. The extension will not have a negative impact on
the neighborhood based on comments from the most impacted neighbor. The approval is
conditioned on the extension having the same look and architectural design of the rest of the
garage. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hill, McBride, Miscio
Nays:
6. Other Business: None.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
,Pw II, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator