No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/1990 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting July 12, 1990 Appeal #1955 ---511 Mathews Street ---Petitioner: Steve Levinger, owner ---Zone: RH ---Section: 29-459 ( 1) ---The variance would allow the use of a detached building in connection with a home occupation. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing home is in an older part of town where garages were not built attached to the homes. The petitioner would like to be able to use the garage in connection with his business as numerous others do with attached garages. He feels that the ordinance creates a hardship to him because he is not afforded the same opportunity that the majority of homeowners have, simply because their garage is attached to their homes. The existing home is over 90 years old and to add an addition to the home would substantially detract from its character. ----Staff comments: none rr Appeal #1956 ---935 W. Oak Street ---Connie L. Werner, owner --Zone: RL ---Section: 29-133(4) ,(5) ----The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet and the required side yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet along the west property line for a garage addition. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing storage building is already at a 1/2 foot setback to the side lot line where the replacement would be moved out to a 2 foot setback. The narrowness of the lot makes it difficult to place a structure at the required setbacks. If made to comply, the structure would obstruct view to the alley from the home which is a security concern. The variance for the rear yard setback is needed to not negatively impact the large American Elm tree which exists in the middle of the back yard. If the petitioner were to comply with the required setbacks the elm would need to be trimmed back, which could endanger its existence. ---Staff comments: none Appeal #1957 ---Petitioner: Faith Evangelical Free Church, owner --Zone: RL ---Section: 29-493 (2) ---The variance requested would eliminate the requirement for a solid wooden fence, 6 feet in height, to screen headlights associated with a parking area, located in the RL zone, from adjacent residentially zoned property. This parking area will not be used at night. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The requirement of a fence on this lot in the RL zone should be varied because of its existance in the floodway and, because it is surrounded by the Ross Green Area and contiguous to Roland Moore Park. The landscaping will meet the requirements for the 75% opacity plus the existing foliage near Spring Creek will more than meet those requirements. The parking lot will be recessed to meet City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage requirements which also help opacity requirements. O. ---Staff comments: The only reason that the parking ordinance requires a fence is to screen headlights of vehicles from adjacent residential uses. If a parking lot is not in a residential zone or directly adjacent to a residential use then the code does not require a fence. There are a number of peculiar and unique conditions of this Rroperty which set it apart from other, 2arking lots in residential zones. 1. While the property is surrounded by residentially zoned land, this land is open space owned by the City. This land will remain open space. The property is really not in a residential subdivision. 2. The three or four houses to the west are 200 to 300 feet away and are located on the other side of the bike path and Spring Creek. The rear yards of these houses are heavily landscaped in their own right and should not be affected by any headlights. 3. The parking lot will rarely, if ever, be used at night. 4. Due to the slope of the lot required by the storm drainage department on the west side of the parking lot, the cars will actually be pointing in a downward direction. This means that even if the lot was used at night the headlights would not be shining directly into anyones yard or house. S. The entire lot is in the floodway. This means that no structures can be built due to the possibility of them becoming dislodged in a flood and floating downstream, where they might damage other property or persons. A breakaway fence may be a possibility, but even then there is no assurance that fencing might not float downstream. This may be an unnecessary risk since a fence for headlight screening is probably not needed and wouldn"t serve the public good. The storm drainage department would prefer not to have a fence installed. 6. While constructing a parking lot would change the character of the open space to a degree, at least it will have landscaping compatible to the area and will only be used on Sundays. Constructing a 6 foot fence around a lot surrounded by open space and wetlands would be an abrupt intrusion into the character of the open space and would be visible every day. The natural resources deptartment, as well as the planning deptartment would prefer not to have a fence installed. 7. If the City's property surrounding this lot were not zoned residential, then a variance would not be needed because a fence would not be required. Since there will be no residential development adjacent to this lot, the intent of the ordinance is met. The Code allows a variance to be granted based on hardships imposed by "extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of such piece of property." The preceding statements explain the uniqueness of this property. The Code also allows that a variance can be granted when it will not result in substantial detriment to the public good and when it will not impair the intent of the code. Requiring a fence will probably be more of a detriment to the public good due to the visual appearance of the fence in the open space and its possible hazard during a flood, whereas granting the variance should not result in substantial detriment to the public good. The board has granted similar variance to delete the required fence when the directly adjacent property owner agrees to its deletion, but usually with the condition that if said property owner decides that the fence is needed, then the fence would have to be built.