Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/08/1997ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1997 8:30 am II Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes II Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 8, 1997 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Breth, Lieser, Gustafson, Stockover, Shannon, Keating, Felner Absent: None Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Wendy Clark, Building & Zoning Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Breth. The minutes from the April 1997 meeting were approved. Appeal 2196 820 W. Prospect Rd by Leondas and Priscilla Tucker Owners one RL approved. Section 3.8.3(A)(1) --- The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building, rather than in the building containing the dwelling unit. Specifically, the home occupation is for "Tucker's Temps" - a nursing pool business which has operated from the detached building at the rear of the property for about the last year or so. (A small 14' addition to the building is planned). --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The home was constructed without an attached garage, therefore the owners couldn't do what so many other people do - that is convert all or part of an attached garage into an office. The building in question was existing when the owners bought the property 9 years ago. --- Staff comments: Most of the lots in this area are large, oversized lots with one or more detached buildings. Few have attached garages on this side of the street. The Board has generally approved this type of variance request when the home does not have an attached garage and when the detached building was pre-existing. ZBA May 8, 1997 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating the subject area. Home Occupations are permitted accessory uses in every zoning district in the city. However, there are certain criteria that have to be satisfied before a Home Occupation license can be issued and the business begins operating. The one criteria that is in question with this property is that the business is currently located in a detached building on the property and has been there for approximately one year. The Home Occupation ordinance requires that all aspects of the business be conducted within the dwelling. This means the business must be located within the building that the dwelling unit is in. However, the board has occasionally seen variance requests from people to allow detached buildings to be used in connection with the business. Generally, the board has viewed those favorably if there are no attached garages to the property and if the building is previously existing and someone does not want to construct a brand new building. The home does not have an attached garage. The home and all of the detached buildings were moved onto this property in the 1970's. This lot is fairly large at over half an acre in size. The parking area is out front for the residence and has a driveway that runs back to two detached buildings located in the back. All the other properties in this area have deep lots and all have detached buildings, not attached garages. Board Questions: Board had no questions at this time. Appealant Priscilla Tucker stated when she originally applied for the Home Occupation license she was working at her dining room table in the home. The business finally out grew her dining room and began to overflow into her living area. When she renewed her license she did ask if it could be located in her garage not knowing that she needed to specify that the garage was detached. The business is run 24 hours a day 7 days a week. She has one other office employee which is her scheduling person. The addition to the office is needed due to the growth the business has experienced. There is a need for more filing cabinets and possibly a little more room for hiring people and conducting interviews. ZBA May 8, 1997 Page 3 Board Discussion: Board member Lieser asked if there were any clients that come to their office. Mrs. Tucker stated no. Lieser asked if they would be needing any further employees. Mrs. Tucker stated that all her employees work off -site and there would be no need for any further office employees. She also stated if there would come a time in the future that she would need more office employees, she would move the office away from the subject property at that time. Chairperson Breth asked Barnes if there could be a condition placed on the variance that this expansion could not be used to create space for additional on -site employees. Barnes stated the board could consider various conditions. However, if there were more than one employee on the site they would need another variance. The condition should state that it is tied to this particular business, otherwise it would stay with the property. Board member Shannon stated there is a hardship here based on the fact that these buildings were already existing. Shannon made a motion to approve this variance with the condition that it is tied directly to this particular business. Lieser seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon, Felner Nays: none OTHER BUSINESS: A. Lieser asked if the Board members could review the suggested changes to the new City Plan Code updates. Barnes stated it will be approximately a month before there is a good draft available. Barnes will bring a draft with him if one is available for the next board meeting. Martin Breth, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator