Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/14/1993ZONING BOARD.OF APPEALS 004 0bty 4kwe bee 14, 1993 Regular meeting 8:30 a.m Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 14, 1993 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Clark, Michelena and Perica. Board members absent: Anastasio and Gustafson. The meeting was called to order by acting -Chairman Huddleson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Support Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Peter Barnes Jennifer Nuckols Paul Eckman The minutes from the August 1993 meeting were approved. Appeal 2082, 229 Park Street, By Mark Fryer approved. 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 petitioners letter. ----- Staff comments: None Two letter were received, one from June Groening and another from Virgil Reeve. Both were in favor of this appeal. Zoning Administrator. Peter Barnes explained that Mr. Fryer had appeared before the Board earlier this year to obtain a variance to allow his pottery operation to be conducted in a detached building. The Home Occupation ordinance does not allow home occupations in detached buildings unless a variance is granted from the Board. Part of that previous proposal was to build an addition on to the existing detached garage. Mr Barnes explained Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 2 that the property is on a corner lot, and the existing garage is going to be part of his, Mr Fryer's, pottery shop, and that he was going to add on a kiln shed, where the kiln would be located. When he got ready to do the work, he realized that the shape of the addition has to be a little different in order to meet building codes, and he has proposed to line it up with the existing south wall of the garage which is already at a 2 foot setback. The slides of the mentioned area were viewed, and it was explained by Mr. Barnes that the petitioner's hardship would be the removal and moving of existing planting beds and the narrowness of the lot. Mr. Barnes stated that the rear setback is met. Board member Perica disqualified himself from the panel, stating that he knew one of the petitioners. Mark Fryer and B.T. Huntley, \ y y, owners of the property appeared before the Board. Mr. Fryer explained that he submitted alternate plans in case his 2 foot setback is granted and that he has carefully thought out his proposal. Ms. Huntley explained that her concerns were for the garden that she has worked on for several years and put a great deal of money into. The code regarding the neighboring buildings being in such close proximity to each other was questioned. Mr. Barnes stated that because Mr. Fryer's building was going to be closer than 3 feet to the property line, that a portion of his building be fire -rated to contain and minimize the spread of fire to adjacent properties. He stated that there is 6 feet between the buildings which is also adequate, from a building code standpoint. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated that he had a hard time finding a hardship, but that a precedence may have been set in the past with granting variances of this nature where additions are built to line up with existing nonconforming walls. Board member Michelena stated that he saw the hardship being the narrowness of the lot and that if the building was to be used for business that it would need to be attached to the existing building. He believes that the proposed area is the best if the shed does need to be attached to the garage. Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 3 Board member Michelena moved to approve Appeal 2082 for the hardship stated. Board member Clark seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Clark, Michelena. The motion passed Appeal 2083, 4828 S. College Ave., by Dan R. Jensen, approved. 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 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 material. 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. Two letters were received and read. One from Carl Nelson, stating his approval of the appeal, another from Lloyd Thomas Jr., stating approval of the appeal with reservations regarding additional concerns. Peter Barnes clarified that the building is in the BL zone and that the property line is the zoning district line and that where the houses are is in the county. He stated that in the BL zone; you don't have to have any setbacks from a building to a property line unless the property line happens to be a zoning district line, then you are required to have a 20 foot setback, because in the city, BL zones are typically adjacent to residential zones. It is different in this case since the residential zone is a county subdivision which consists of acreages. None the less, in the BL zone it is required to meet the setback form a zoning Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 4 district line, which happens to be the back property line, and the setback is supposed to be 20 feet. Board member Cuthbertson questioned who owned the ditch and it's usage. City Attorney, Paul Eckman, stated that it is an irrigation ditch that the residents of Fairway Estates use to irrigate their properties. Dan Jensen, owner of the property, president of Jensen Homes, appeared before the Board. Mr. Jensen stated that due to storm water drainage requirements, number of parking spaces, handicapped requirements for parking and building access, there was no choice for location. He cannot adjust storm water drainage requirements at all. They are very strict in their requirements. He stated that the main purpose of the garage is for storage and the problems of unsightliness of construction materials and equipment and that he wants to keep tractors and other equipment out of sight and out of the dirt/mud. The reason for already pouring the concrete slab was to start stacking materials on, to keep off of the ground Board member Perica questioned City Attorney Paul Eckman if the Storm water drainage issue would constitute a hardship under the code. Mr. Eckman stated that that is really for the Board to decide, but that the code states that if the area has any ......unusual topographical conditions or extraordinary conditions of the property, so the board has that latitude to work within, and that it is up to the Board to decide if it is hardship.. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated that he feels that the landowner (Jensen) has no choice of where he can locate the structure and feels he is entitled and has the hardship due to topography and requirements of the City in regards to the storm drainage department. Board member Perica questioned the issue of the fence on the east side of the property as to whether it is going to be required. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that Mr. Jensen is not asking for a variance on the fence and that according to Mr. Eckman, because it is a platted utility and bridle path easement, we could not allow a fence there. That issue will need to be resolved. Board member Perica moved to approve Appeal 2083 on the ground of the hardship stated. Board member Michelena seconded the motion. Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 5 Yeas: Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Clark, Michelena, Perica. The motion passed. Appeal 2084,406 E. Pitkin Street,by Lee Howe, approved. ----- 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. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated that the area is near Fort Collins High School where many of the houses have detached garages and there are no curb cuts along the streets so everything comes off the alley. Many of the garages were built before setbacks were required for detached buildings. The existing garage is undersized for a 2-car garage and the roof is sagging and in poor condition. The proposal is to reconstruct the garage at the same location with the exception that it would be added on towards the house another 3 feet to add depth to the garage. The pine tree in question would be affected if the owner were made to comply with the 5 foot setback requirement. Lee Howe, owner of the property, was present. Ms. Howe stated that the parking space to the west is critical and that parking in front is filled during the day with high school students, and the lot is only 40 feet wide. If 5 foot setback were to be met; the large pine tree would have to be removed. Ms. Howe stated that the proposed garage will be the same width with only the length being increased towards the house. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Cuthbertson stated that this fits other similar Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 6 situations and does not feel it is an issue and meets Boards criteria. Board member Perica stated that previous variances were granted for substantial vegetation on site. He stated that that appears to be the only hardship present on this request. He questioned if side yard setback would still be met if garage met 5 foot rear set back but was moved to the east or west? Could parking be reversed to other side of the garage? Could Ms. Howe park on the other side of garage from were is presently parked? Ms. Howe stated that it would be feasible if all of the fencing were re -done, but there is a telephone box on one side and a power pole on the other side and that limits parking. Board member Perica moved to approve Appeal 2084 on the ground.of the hardship and potential impact on the pine tree and the inability to redesign the site plan. Board member Cuthbertson seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Perica. Nays: Clark, Michelena. The motion passed, 3 to 2. Board member Perica excused self from the meeting. Appeal 2085,1704 S. Whitcomb Street by Christine & Gail Oberhofer, denied. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 7" Two letters were received. One from Donald Markstrom, not in favor of this appeal, and another from Mary Carroll also not in favor of this appeal. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that the owner currently has a two -car wide driveway with a one -car detached garage, and the majority of other homes in the neighborhood have attached garages. The proposal is to have the garage addition go to the east. The owners stated hardship is that if the addition has to be at the same setback as the current garage, it would be too close to the house and one would be unable to get into the garage. A 10 foot utility easement goes along the property line. Five feet of the easement would have to vacated if the variance is approved. Neighbors expressed concern that the remaining 5 feet of easement would not be adequate. It would be up to the utility companies to determine any difficulties. Mr. Barnes noted the heavy student parking all along both sides of the street. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Michelena questioned the concrete slab on the side of the existing garage as to whether it was encroaching on the side easements. Mr. Barnes explained that you can concrete your entire property from property line to property line, and there are no regulations that you can't pave over an easement, but if utilities need to get to that area, they are not obligated to get permission to tear that up or to replace it. Gail Oberhofer, owner of the property, appeared before the Board. Mr. Oberhofer explained that his area of living was becoming a high -density area with the approval of student housing and there is an overload of cars in the area. He stated that there is a red -zone in front of his house, thus he loses an additional parking space. In regard to the utilities, he stated that the utilities have been pulled from the power poles, the lines are buried, .except for the telephone company. Board member Huddleson stated that he had a hard time finding a hardship. Board member Clark agreed and remarked that a 27 foot garage was very deep, was it going to be used for storage also? Board member Michelena stated that he saw the hardship being trying to meet the easement requirements and the need for a larger garage, but was concerned with the easement encroachment and questioned whether the garage could be redesigned. Zoning Administrator Barnes noted the options available to the Board: To deny, grant or modify the variance, making the garage 22 feet to 23 feet long versus the 27 feet sought. Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 8 Board member Michelena motioned to approve Appeal 2085. The Appeal was not seconded. Board member Cuthbertson motioned to deny Appeal 2085. Board member Clark seconded the motion for denial. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Clark. Nays: Michelena. The motion passed. Appeal 2086, 308 Park Street, By Nancy L. Reed, withdrawn 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 2086 was withdrawn by the petitioner. Appeal 2087,1104 Green Street By Jerry Roselle, denied. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 9 ----- Staff comments: The tall fence along the rear of this lot is a very unique feature. One letter was received by Mr. Brian Hahn, in favor of this appeal. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed slides of the area and explained that the proposed area for the shed would be 6 feet from.the rear property line, and there is a 6 foot utility easement there. Code requires a 15 foot rear setback from that property line. The 9 foot high fence separates the petitioners land and a medical office where there is a zoning district line. The fence was put up when the medical office was under construction to address concerns expressed by residential neighbors bordering the commercial structure. He explained the existence of mature trees and landscaping. Board member Michelena questioned if'shed position would really encroach upon neighbors view. He stated that the slide shown of the area was unclear to him. Mr. Barnes stated that there are some openings in the landscaping and that the peak of the roof would be visible from Mr. Hahn's window. He stated that if it were put back in the corner it would be screened from view by a hedge type of bush. As it would be moved closer to the petitioners house, the hedge starts to disappear and there are some openings. Board member Michelena pointed out that Mr Hahn's view is either the big fence and the medical center or both of those and the roof of the shed. Mr. Barnes stated thatit is all to the south and the east, but that Mr. Hahn has stated that it would disrupt his view. Jerry Roselle, owner of the property, appeared before the Board. Mr. Roselle clarified that the slide shown, showed the south view which was looking into his yard and the office building is to the left of the neighbors, looking out their window. Stated that Mr. Hahn sees the 2 tall spruce trees and a walnut tree. If the shed where moved back to meet the 15 foot setback, the neighbor would see the roof of the building along with the above mentioned view. If it were set back as proposed, the neighbor would not see the shed, because there are 2 trees to his left. He wouldn't see the building, just the 2 spruce trees. He stated that the fence on Mr. Hahn's south line is a regular privacy fence. Mr. Roselle stated that the benefits to building the shed as proposed and allowing the variance, in addition to keeping it obscure from Mr. Hahn's view, is that it is better balanced in the yard at the 6 foot rear setback and it doesn't ruin the length of the yard. It is more harmonious if it is back in that corner. He stated by having this storage building, he can use his garage and store Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 10 items in the shed in the winter rather than having them in the garage. He stated that it is visually more appealing at the 6 foot setback than if it were 15 feet closer to the house or 15 feet back from the fence. He stated that his hardships are that it is in compliance with the intent of the code, it decreases the usefulness of the yard, it would be in direct sight of the neighbors, decrease the value of the property because it would look out of place and decrease the usefulness of the yard. would make more sense to have it in the corner. Questioned whether this is a hardship, but stated that he already purchased the materials and to redesign it would be an added cost and didn't feel that it would look as good. He stated that the building compliments the design of his house. Board member Huddleson stated that the only possible hardship was the deciduous tree. He questioned whether it was going to be destroyed if it were required that he meet the 15 foot setback. Mr. Roselle stated that the shed will be close to the tree. It would be under the canopy of the tree. It would cut down on the usefulness of the building as it would be right by the door of the building. By having it closer to "the tree, it ruins the run of the yard. He stated that the neighbor on the other side, Jack Shirey, also would prefer the shed be in the corner. Board member Huddleson stated that he agreed that it made more sense and would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors, but he is limited to granting a variance when a hardship is created by the lot itself, the topography, narrowness, those kinds of things. But he has not reached the level of seeing a hardship presented in Mr. Roselle's presentation. Mr. Roselle questioned if decrease in value is a considered hardship. Stated that having it closer to the house is a hardship in that it really is not safe and that children would have to play_in front yard. Hardship is created by lots nature. Board member Michelena asked City Attorney Paul Eckman to go over the criteria that the Board has to follow as far as variances. Mr. Eckman read "You are authorized to grant variances whereby reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or slope of a piece of property, at the time of the enactment of this article, or by reason of exceptional topographical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation enacted herein would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this article". • 0 Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 11 Board member Michelena stated that moving the shed up would be detrimental to the neighbor. He questioned Mr. Roselle as to the height of the shed. Mr. Roselle stated that it would be about 10 feet. Mr. Michelena stated that 4 feet would then be seen over the top of the fence and that it is a rather large shed. Mr. Roselle stated that it is 12 x 14. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated that the criteria stated by Mr. Eckman are criteria to make you come to a feeling of hardship and other criteria are that a variance can be granted if the hardship is found but does not cause substantial harm. But hardship must still be found. Stated he is "wrestling" with finding a hardship. Board member Cuthbertson stated he was having a hard time finding a hardship. Sees no detriment. Stated that a slightly smaller type shed would need no variance and that there appeared to be alternatives although maybe not desired. Board member Michelena stated that he also was having a hard time finding the hardship but could see the benefits of having the shed where proposed. Stated that the Board has to go on legalities and because of the reason of having to find a hardship, it is difficult to find one in this instance and a true hardship has to be shown. Mr. Roselle stated that if the shed were closer to the house, it would be right outside the kitchen window and if they wanted to add on to the house in the future, they would be unable to. Stated that due to the nature of the lot and the neighborhood, he feels they can find a hardship legally. Stated that if the lot were deeper it would not be a hardship, but because it is so narrow, feels that it fits within the criteria for a hardship. Board member Clark stated that he was unable to find a hardship in which to make a motion on. Board member Michelena moved to deny Appeal 2087 for lack of a hardship. Board member Clark seconded the motion. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Clark, Michelena. The motion passed. Appeal 2088 913 E. Laurel St. by Barbara Carley for U.S. West, Mike Jones of Northern Engineering, present. Partially approved. 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 0 Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 12 the landscape strip along Laurel Street to 0 feet, reduce 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. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. ----- Staff comments: The request to eliminate the interior landscaping is consistent with other similar requests the Board has considered for storage areas and areas where large trucks must maneuver. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed slides of the area and stated that the facility is located at the end of East Laurel St. The east of the building on the property is used for storage and along the east side is a row of parking. Proposal is to pave the mentioned area, once that is done it would need to comply with the parking ordinance which has requirements for landscaping. Mike Jones, of Northern Engineering, appeared before the board. Mr. Jones stated that his firm would do the civil design on the drainage for the proposed site. No change of use or additional structures are proposed. There is an existing security fence around the area already. Stated a drainage problem when it rains, water comes up to back door of building which could be alleviated by paving and grading. Stated there is an existing landscape area on the south. Board member Michelena questioned if there were any complaints from the Laurel school and keeping the children out. Mr. Jones stated that there is an existing 6 foot high chain link fence and to the east is industrial buildings and the school is to the south and west and it becomes residential further west. Board member Huddleson questioned Mr. Barnes that if the variance were granted and paving allowed, would this come before the Board again if the use changes later? Mr Barnes. questioned Mr. Eckman if the variance goes with the property regardless of use unless conditioned otherwise? Mr. Eckman stated that unless variance is conditioned on this use, one would be "out of luck". Board member Clark stated that by paving, it is being turned into a parking lot, but is really a storage area. Can see benefits of landscaping in certain areas but not in most. Mr. Jones stated that the proposal is not to pave the entire site, but just the Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 13 area on the drawing received by the Board, there is still some perimeter area to be left in gravel which is storage. Stated that if use changed, that area could be converted to a landscaped area. Board member Cuthbertson stated that he was not in favor of granting this variance. The NCB zone is to be used as a transitional area between residential areas and more intensive commercial areas. If they have a use that was there before the zone was changed, the intent is to create a neighborhood setting. Property owner should be moving toward providing that setting. Sees in request nothing to do that. Stated that some of the requirements could be met. Agreed on by Board member Michelena. Mr. Barnes stated that they are required to have perimeter landscaping in addition to the fence. The landscaping that they would put on their lot would be on their side of the fence so the landscaping wouldn't necessarily be visible to adjacent properties. The fence would screen the storage and parking areas. Mr. Jones stated that by company rules, they are required to have a fence in that area, but an interweave fencing that could be applied to existing chain link would create a sight screen without changing existing fence. Board member Huddleson questioned if a compromise could be sought, not requiring both the fence and landscaping. Mr. Michelena agreed that the landscaping would be hidden and neither party on either side of the fence would receive any benefit from the landscaping, but would like to see landscaping along the front on East Laurel. Stated would like to see a motion where privacy fence granted and some substantial landscaping on East Laurel portion of the building. Mr. Barnes stated that there would be room for a 10 foot wide landscape strip behind the sidewalk on Laurel. Landscaping not required in front of the building. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Clark questioned whether a fabric weave in the chain link would be considered a privacy fence. Mr. Barnes stated that it would on the south and west lot lines. Board member Huddleson suggested denying the elimination of the 10 foot wide landscape strip and elimination of the 6 foot privacy fence and granting the rest. Board member Michelena moved to deny the reduction of the 10 foot landscape strip and to eliminate the 6 foot privacy fence and to approve the remainder of the appeal. Board member Cuthbertson seconded the amended Appeal. Yeas: Cuthbertson, Huddleson, Clark, Michelena. The motion passed. Zoning Board of Appeals October 14, 1993 Page 14 Other Business ----- Election of officers. Tabled until next meeting. No new business. The meeting was adjourned. Charles Huddleson, Acting Chairman �� 13", Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 14, 1993 1. Roll call. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 68 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.