No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1993 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 14, 1993 1 . Roll call. 2. Appeal 2082 . The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet in order to allow a kiln shed addition to the west side of the existing garage. (The south wall of the addition will line up with the existing south wall of the garage, which is already at a 2 foot setback) . The property is located in the NCM zone. Section 29-167 ( 5) by Mark Fryer, 229 Park Street. Appeal 2083. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for a new, detached 2 car garage in the BL zone. Section 29-303 by Dan R. Jensen, 4828 S. College Avenue. ,A'.' Appeal 2084 . The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a new detached garage in the NCM zone. The new garage would replace the older, existing garage which is already located at a 2 foot setback from the rear property line. Section 29-167 (4 ) by Lee Howe, 406 E. Pitkin Street. Appeal 2085. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a new detached, 2-car garage in the RL zone, to replace the existing 1-car garage. Section 29-133 (4 ) by Christine & Gail Oberhofer, 1704 S. Whitcomb Street. Appeal 2086. The variance would reduce the required 5 foot side yard setback to 3 feet for a carport addition to a garage in the NCM zoning district. Section 29-167 (5) by Nancy L. Reed, 308 Park Street. Appeal 2087 . The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet for a new 12 ' X 14 ' storage shed in the RL zone. Section 29-133(4) by Jerry Roselle, 1104 Green Street. 8. Appeal 2088. The variance would reduce the required 10 foot wide landscape strip along Laurel Street to 0 feet, reduce the required 5 foot wide landscape strip along the west, and east lot lines to 0 feet, reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0%, and eliminate the requirement to provide a 6 foot high privacy fence along the south and west lot line. The property is the U.S. West construction garage facility, and the requirements are necessary due to the owner' s proposal to pave the gravel area. Section 29-493( 1) , 29-493 (2) (a) , 29-493( f) by Barbara Carley for U.S. West, 913 E. Laurel St. . 9 . Other business. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting October '14, 1993 Appeal 2082 --- 229 Park Street --- Petitioner: Mark Fryer --- Zone: NCM ZONE --- Section 29-167 (5) --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet in order to allow a kiln shed addition to the west side of the existing garage. (The south wall of the addition will line up with the existing south wall of the garage, which is already at a 2 foot setback) . The property is located in the NCM zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: See petitioner' s letter. --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2083 --- 4828 S. College Avenue --- Petitioner: Dan R. Jensen --- Zone: BL ZONE --- Section 29-303 --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for a new, detached 2 car garage in the BL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The new office building under construction at this site will be a construction office. The construction company needs a storage building for equipment and materials. Locating the garage elsewhere on the lot would result in eliminating needed parking for tenants of the building. The nearest home affected by this request is about 200 feet away and should not be impacted by a 2-car garage structure. Since the property is commercial and has a parking lot, storm water detention facilities are required, and moving this anywhere else would impact these facilities . --- Staff comments: This is the only corner of the parking area in which the garage can be located due to the manner in which the storm water facilities have had to been constructed. A 6 foot high solid fence and landscaping is required to be installed along the east lot line, so the visual impact to properties to the east will be minimal. Appeal 2084 --- 406 E. Pitkin Street --- Petitioner: Lee Howe --- Zone: NCM ZONE --- Section 29-167 (4 ) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a new detached garage in the NCM zone. The new garage would replace the older, existing garage which is already located at a 2 foot setback from the rear property line. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The owner' s home is small and she desires additional storage space. The existing garage is dilapidated and is already only 2 feet from the rear lot line. The new garage would be built in the same location, but increased 2 feet in depth. Moving the garage an extra 3 feet would require the removal of a large, mature pine tree. --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2085 --- 1704 S. Whitcomb Street --- Petitioner: Christine & Gail Oberhofer --- Zone: RL Zone --- Section 29-133(4 ) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a new detached, 2-car garage in the RL zone, to replace the existing 1-car garage. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The property currently has a detached, 1-car garage. There is no attached garage. Parking is a big problem in the neighborhood because of the proximity to CSU. The owner would like to have a 2-car garage to replace the existing garage. However, meeting the 15 foot setback would place the garage only 9 1/2 feet from the house, making car access impossible. Building an attached 2-car garage would require a side setback variance. The property behind this lot is open, CSU property, so this request does not impact any other property. --- Staff comments: This home is the only one in the neighborhood with a detached garage. All the others have either one-car or two-car attached garages. Appeal 2086 --- 308 Park Street --- Petitioner: Nancy L. Reed --- Zone: NCM ZONE --- Section 29-167 (5) --- The variance would reduce the required 5 foot side yard setback to 3 feet for a carport addition to a garage in the NCM zoning district. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The existing driveway and garage are located within 3 feet of the property line. The owner would like to construct a carport that aligns with the existing structure. The carport is needed to protect the car from the elements and from the sap which drips from trees adjacent to the driveway. --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2087 --- 1104 Green Street --- Petitioner: Jerry Roselle --- Zone: RL ZONE --- Section 29-133 (4 ) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet for a new 12 ' X 14 ' storage shed in the RL zone. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The back yard of the property contains a number of mature deciduous and evergreen trees which limit the possible locations for this shed. The lot to the rear is a medical office with a 9 - 10 ' high fence along the property line, so this shed will not be visible from the lot most affected, therefore the intent of the code is met. Moving the shed would place it close to the house and bring it in to view of the neighbors to the north, who would prefer it be located as proposed so that it is screened by the trees on their lot. --- Staff comments: The tall fence along the rear of this lot is a very unique feature. Appeal 2088 --- 913 E. Laurel St. --- Petitioner: Barbara Carley for U.S. West --- Zone: NCB ZONE --- Section 29-493 ( 1) , 29-493 (2 ) (a) , 29-493(f) --- The variance would reduce the required 10 foot wide landscape strip along Laurel Street to 0 feet, reduce the required 5 G� foot wide landscape strip along the west, and east lot lines �JI to 0 feet, reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0%, and eliminate the requirement to provide a 6 foot high privacy fence along the south and west lot line. The property is the U.S. West construction garage facility, and the requirements are necessary due to the owner' s proposal to pave the gravel area. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: See petitioner' s letter. ,, - --- Staff comments: The request to eliminate the interior landsaping is consistent with other similar requests the Board has considered for storage areas and areas where large trucks must maneuver. Other Business- --- Election of officers. t'. 4 ?f � � .Z, 'i I C!•.L'I � [°--}•_G�:f.�' ! = ,:�y i 1L >11.1 .....I. CL y {�� _C 'L-�'7..i. �G-y t..� .G l: �' '•.�-c r ��� •C (_-4 .".�.��L.'z.L C.B , � �: � _.,. C C • � � ,.� •� � �JCi L �{ ,�'„'-�"-�.CJt L , /`1 �LL ✓_'' '�. �f_ �yi � %'. - %._�: t � .. �� 'r /' +7 !^ ^ '• .� , .. ��;' � �� .�`y / Y v _fLyd !9. 9twmas, 01.., Z. 1136 East Stuart, Bldg. 4, Suite 103 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Phone: (303) 221-2444 Practice Limited to Periodontics Oiplomete American Board of Penodontology October 12, 1993 Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator City of Ft. Collins 281 N. College Ave. , Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO. 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is in follow-up to our telephone conversation of Tuesday morning, October 12. our main concerns regarding the zoning variance regarding a set-back from the required 20 feet to instead 10 feet are: the amount of space needed to bring in equipment to clean out the irrigation ditch, as is done occasionally on ditches; cutting off access for walks along the ditch, (many people in the neighborhood take walks there) ; and of course aesthetics. The foundation has already been poured for the double garage, which leaves a very short 10 feet of space to the edge of the ditch. However, it seems unreasonable to insist that the foundation be torn up. We were wondering if Jensen Homes would be responsible for ditch maintenance on that short stretch should it become necessary to dig it out, and also were wondering if the back of the garage would be landscaped. It was at this point in our conversation you mentioned that a privacy fence would also need to be installed along the back of the property, probably on the property line, with landscaping on the inside or West side of the fence. The privacy fence requirement would seem to make things worse. It would really block off the ditch access for any purpose, including walking, let alone cleaning. Plus, unless the fence could be extended to the South and North to make a continuous line behind the Albrecht Homes office and the Church of the Living G D, it would make a visual hodgepodge of the area. (Now a fence about 15 feet tall extended behind those other two buildings would be nice) ! seriously, since a variance is being considered for the garage, it would seem to be a better solution to ask for nice landscaping between the parking lot and the ditch and do a variance on the short length of fence as well. Medium sized bushy pine trees would act as a screen for car lights (not a big problem anyway from our point of view, unless Jensen Homes adds a drive-thru fast food window) , and would certainly be aesthetically pleasing. There is room enough to the East of the parking lot for decent trees without concern for roots invading the ditch. Perhaps just behind the blank wall of the garage some climbing vines could be done to soften the look, and still give a bit of room behind the garage and the ditch. A homebuilder ought to have some workable ideas to enhance the looks of the area from the East. A short-length fence with landscaping on the West side doesn't seem to be any kind of solution at all, just another eyesore. We would be very happy to meet with either yourself or Mr. Jensen to discuss any ideas. Our goal is to keep the ditch area functional, and improve rather than detract from the looks of the area. sincerely, Lloyd and Jeannin& Thomas