Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/09/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — August 9, 2007 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Dwight Hall A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 9, 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 Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dana McBride 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: Miscio made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 12, 2007 meeting. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 3. APPEAL NO. 2584 — Approved with Condition Address: 2700 S. College Petitioner: Debbi Condojanai-Meador Zone: C Section: 3.3.4(A) Donahue noted he had a conflict of interest and left the dais 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 ZBA August 9, 2007— Page 2 centers in that it only provides care for children who are dropped off for short, occasional care (similar to baby sitting). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: This is the same situation that the Board discussed regarding Appeal 2577 on June 14, 2007. 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: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The center would be located in the SW portion of a multi -tenant building at the corner of College & Thunderbird —directly south from the Moot House Restaurant. 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. A variance is necessary in order to waive the need for a play area. Applicant's Participation: Debbie Condojanai-Meador, 10841 Crossroads Drive, # 6, Parker, CO 80134 reported that arrangements to lease the previously requested variance (1825 E. Harmony Road) did not come to fruition. They believe the new location (2700 S. College) is better suited to their's and their customer's needs for the ten year lease they will be entering in to. The business fills a niche for families as it offers a place for occasional care not to exceed 13 hours a week. In addition to days, the center is open evenings and weekends. It helps families on an emergency basis or as a convenient drop -in while they run errands or go to dinner. Board Discussion: Dickson asked what age children would be served. Condojanai-Meador responded they care for children aged newborn to 13 years old. They will take children older than 13 if they're special needs. ZBA August 9, 2007— Page 3 Miscio asked how much more likely a lease would be signed at the proposed location. Condojanai-Meador replied very likely. In fact the brokers are in the final stages and the owner, John McCoy, was present and could attest to how close they are to final agreement. Hall noted, as learned during the review of Appeal 2577 on June 14, 2007; the City Code is not totally in sync with State regulations. 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. The State also does licensing, inspection of the facilities and licensing the operators. The State has required the applicant to meet local building and fire regulations before a State license is issued. Dickson asked how many children would be served at the current location. Condojanai-Meador replied similar to the last location-40 children. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2584 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. The reasons are it promotes the standard because it complies with State requirements with regard to drop -in centers and outdoor play areas. Their facility is for the occasional or short term care situation (versus full time all day arrangements.) Also, there are plenty of indoor and scheduled activities. The approval is conditional --specific to this location and applicant. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Donahue returned to the dais. 4. APPEAL NO. 2585— Denied Address: 723 Cherry Street Petitioner: Kent Nixon Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(4) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line abutting the alley from 5' to 0'. The variance is requested in order to allow an addition to the home that will connect the house to the existing detached studio building. The existing detached building is already at a zero setback along the alley, and the addition will line up with the existing east wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: If the addition met the setback, then it would be only 9' wide. For the time being, the addition is intended to serve as a waiting room for the home occupation. Ultimately, the addition would be a bedroom. Therefore, a width of greater than 9' is needed. The lot line abuts an alley, and the detached building already exists at a zero setback, so the impact of this addition is minimal. ZBA August 9, 2007— Page 4 Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The home is located in the old town area of the City where for many years there have been a number of non -conforming structures. The mix of buildings on this particular lot is the home, a detached garage and a detached studio. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line abutting the alley from 5' to 0'. The variance is requested in order to allow an addition to the home that will connect the house to the existing detached studio building. The existing detached building is already at a zero setback along the alley, and the addition will line up with the existing east wall. Applicant's Participation: Ken Nixon, 723 Cherry, would like to add an addition to his home that would connect it to a studio on the east side of his lot. The studio abuts the alley, has a zero setback, and while not currently in use would be remodeled to add heat and allow direct access for clients of his acupuncture business. His clients include disabled individuals in wheel chairs. Hall asked if the connection could be made to the west side of the studio. Nixon responded his garden is currently there and he'd like to maximize the southern exposure for better light into the remodeled area. Additionally the proposed location would be better suited for adding a bathroom dedicated to his client's use. Miscio asked if he had sought the feedback of his neighbor to the east. Nixon said yes —they're friends and the neighbor/friend supports his plans for change. Additionally, their homes are separated by the alley and there are a number of trees and shrubs that protect privacy on their respective lots. Board Discussion: Hall expressed concern about allowing a living structure right on the alley. Donahue asked if the alley was still active. Barnes replied yes, it is a dedicated alley. Dickson asked how wide the alley was. Barnes noted most alleys are 20 feet. There is some variability in this particular alley both in its layout (it's rectangular in shape) and the width in some spots. Pisula noted he would be amenable to a nominal and inconsequential justification if it fit in the context of the neighborhood. He expressed reservations, however, about a zero setback for a home as it seems that most of the previously approved zero setbacks were for garages. Barnes agreed —when we do find zero setbacks, the vast majority is for detached structures. Concerns were raised such as if the building was built at zero setback on the alley how would the issues of windows (for privacy) and safety (should a large truck cause damage to the structure) be addressed. Hall asked if a variance would be required if the addition was to the west side of the studio where there is adequate room for construction. Would that leave the current studio building at a zero setback? Barnes replied a variance would not be required so long as the new construction complied with the setback regulations. Hall made a motion to deny appeal number 2585 because the proposal as submitted would be detrimental to the public good, because the applicant did not satisfy the criteria necessary to justify a hardship variance, and because the applicant has not shown that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purposes of the standard for which the ZBA August 9, 2007— Page 5 variance is requested equally well of better than would a proposal which complies with the standard. Donahue seconded the motion. Nixon asked if he moved the structure in 2-3 feet, would the Board reconsider the question. Barnes said changing the request in a fashion that reduces impact to neighbors would not require re -notification. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that could be done either by amending the motion, withdrawing the motion, or calling for a vote. Donahue said he believes there are solutions other than along the property line. Pisula said he was still not there (not wanting to approve a variance with a 2-3 foot setback) —he doesn't know that it would work in the neighborhood. There was a call for a vote. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Hall, Pisula Nays: Daggett, Miscio Barnes recommended the applicant take a survey of other structures (houses vs. garages) in his neighborhood that shows setbacks of five feet or less —including like situations along this particular alley. There are no guarantees on how a new application would be viewed by the Board but if he provided data that gives a context of situations similar to his variance request that could possibly help the Board. 5. Other Business: Barnes noted that Miscio's term is term limited and ends December 31, 2007. There was discussion about the next breakfast work session. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. � � a t� wight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator