Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2015 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingMichael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA150039 Address: 6200 S. College Avenue Petitioner: Matt Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics Owner: Vincent and Joy Barnhart Zoning District: CG Code Section: 3.8.7(A)(2) Project Description The request is for a rooftop sign to be installed. The Land Use Code prohibits the installation of new rooftop signs. 2. APPEAL ZBA150040 Address: 209 3rd Street Petitioner/Owner: Charles Klamm Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b), 3.8.19(A)(6), 3.8.19(A)(7) Project Description: The variance request is to allow a new house to be built 8'6" into the required 20' front-yard setback; the eaves to extend an additional 6"; and the stoop covering an additional 3'. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Michael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Boardmember Stockover was absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 14 AND AUGUST 13, 2015 Shuff made a motion, seconded by Bear, to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2015 meeting . Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve the minutes of the May 14, 2015 meeting . Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda): None. • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA 150036 - Approved Address: 2201 Cedarwood Drive Petitioner: Mark Deines, ABO Ltd. Owners: Patrick Plaisance & Altisaya Vimuktanon Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description The variance request is to build a 635 sq. ft. addition to the house and allow two corners of the addition to encroach into the rear setback 7.42 ft. and 3 ft. Staff Presentation: Beals noted this property is in the cul-de-sac of Cedarwood Drive and stated open space surrounds the property. He showed slides relevant to the appeal and stated the addition would be off the back wall of the home. Beals went on to discuss the encroachments which would result from the proposed single-story addition . Additionally, Beals stated staff is recommending approval of the request as being nominal and inconsequential. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 September 10, 2015 Applicant Presentation: Bob Peterson, owner of Associates in Building Design (ABO) Ltd, stated the addition is being built separate from the house because attaching the addition would eliminate two egress windows for basement bedrooms. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bello and Shuff stated the request seems reasonable given the open space and the fact the encroachment does not exist along the entire wall. Bear appreciated Mr. Peterson's explanation. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal ZBA150036 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the 20 foot drainage easement along the south side of the south property line makes it difficult to place an addition to the house that complies with setbacks; the addition is only the corners of the building and not the full face, and due to the need to separate the addition in order to maintain two existing basement bedrooms. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the Code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Additionally, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA150037 -Approved Address: 2902 Blue Leaf Drive Petitioner/Owner: Aran Fridal Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance would allow a deck to be built 5 ft. into the required 15 ft. rear-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals stated this property is located on the corner of Yorkshire Street and Blue Leaf Drive. He showed slides relevant to the appeal. There is a City-owned open space which acts as a drainage easement separating the residential properties. There is a sidewalk in the middle of the open space. The proposed deck addition is open on three sides. Staff is recommending approval of the variance as being nominal and inconsequential being that the deck is still open on three sides, it abuts open space which creates at least a 15 foot setback from another residential property, and the request is only for a 5 foot encroachment. Applicant Presentation: Aran Fridal, 2902 Blue Leaf Drive, provided the Board additional photos of the existing deck and patio. Their intent in requesting the variance is to gain more depth for the deck. Building the deck to meet setback requirements going north or south could gain more square footage but would not solve the depth issue. If the deck were expanded to the north: there is an angled breakfast nook wall there and they would lose 4 feet in doing that and it would shade the basement window. If the deck were expanded to the south: the level of the deck is higher than entrance door threshold to garage and moving the deck here would require stepping down and losing the proposed continuous deck level. There is also another basement window to the south. The photo shows the tight area around their patio table on their current deck. They also want a build a stairway to the east that would take up 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 September 10, 2015 feet. There is a large shade tree 1 O feet away. The request is to build their deck closer to the tree and have a stairway that connects to the lower patio. Audience Participation: Don Whitson, 287 4 Blue Leaf Drive, spoke in support of the variance request. He has lived in the subdivision since it was built 22 years ago. They were unaware until about 5 years ago that the greenbelt area in the back is actually owned by the City. The sidewalk in the middle of the greenbelt is really a flood pan from a culvert that runs under Yorkshire. This area is unique to the neighborhood because the houses were built around this greenspace and it is the only place in the subdivision that the greenbelt narrows to a funnel where it is not passable by pedestrians. The neighbors have always taken care of the greenbelt. The City does not maintain it. When they built their homes it was presented to them that the HOA owned this greenbelt that connects to the park. There is not a lot of foot traffic because it dead ends. Fridal's deck is shielded by large trees to the north. The appearance of the proposed deck wouldn't look like it was encroaching into City property. The angle of lot is a disadvantage. The greenbelt narrows substantially and would be difficult to build the deck any other way. It enhances the character of the area. He has spoken to all the neighbors in the area and they are in support of this variance. Board Discussion: Long stated the request seems reasonable for the site and low impact given by the greenbelt. Bear made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal ZBA150037 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the deck area that encroaches is not covered; the deck is open on three sides and the drainage easement abutting the property exceeds the minimum setback. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL ZBA150038 - Denied Address: 200 S. College Ave, Suite 160 Petitioner: Amy Laner. ANJO Designs Owner: Jesse Laner, C3 Real Estate Solutions Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7(M)(1), 3.8.7(M)(4)(a), 3.8.7(M)(4)(c), 3.8.7(M)(4)(d) Project Description: The request is to allow an Electronic Message Center sign, approximately 5 sq. ft., to be displayed in the ground floor window of the building. This request would require the following variances: 1) Allow the sign's message to be animated. 2) Allow the message to change more than once per minute. 3) Allow the changing message to scroll. 4) Allow the message to display more than a single color, value, and hue with a single color background. 5) Allow the electronic message center to be 100% of the total sign face area; maximum allowed is 50%. Staff Presentation: Beals stated the property is located at the corner of South College Avenue and East Oak Street. He showed slides relevant to the appeal noting its location in the window. Beals described the sign noting it is considered an electronic message center in the Land Use Code, which is only allowed to be 50% of the sign area and are only allowed 2 colors. Additionally, Beals stated staff is not Zoning Board of Appeals Page4 September 10, 2015 recommending approval of the variance given it may be detrimental to the public good and given the number of Land Use Code requirements relating to an electronic message center. The applicants have not provided enough evidence to support the variances. There are some legal non-conforming signs in the city; however, they will be required to come into compliance by a designated date. McCoy asked if the window glass is considered differently than the building face for determining the size and scope of the sign. Beals replied a window sign is allowed a certain percentage of the window area and this is not exceeding that. McCoy asked about the temporary sidewalk sign. Beals replied the sign is within the public right-of- way and the Engineering Department allows for these types of signs to encroach in the downtown area. McCoy asked if the sign, which is more of a computer screen, could be set back from the window and remain in compliance. Beals replied it could be in a lobby area at least three feet away from the window and remain in compliance. Bello asked if the 8.5x11 sheets of paper with real estate listings count as sign area. Beals replied those are allowed as they are shown; however, they cannot go over 6 square feet total. He added the electronic message center can only be 50% of the total sign area. Applicant Presentation: Jesse Laner, C3 Real Estate, noted the actual property address is Suite 160. He stated this is a new technology which is a unique way of providing information to the public without an intimidation factor. He described the sign as being interactive with the keyboard touchpad being mounted on the outside of the glass; the monitor would be behind the glass and could potentially be three feet behind if needed. Additionally, Laner stated the sign could also display information about upcoming City events. Chris Naab, Touch Point Systems, WindoVision , Chelsea, Michigan, stated he is the developer of this technology. He discussed the previously mentioned intimidation factor and stated citizens want to get information on demand. Mr. Naab went on to state monitors are not addressed in the Code and this particular technology is not the same as the Code-defined electronic message center. Additionally, he noted the system could be used for public information purposes regarding community events. McCoy asked if the screen would constantly be on or would fade out after use. Mr. Naab replied the screen can return to a static image following use or scroll through community activities. Bello stated a scrolling messaging screen would be more detrimental. Mr. Naab replied the program can be made to simply wait for a consumer to request information. Bello asked if this display would be viewed differently if this were to be simply a real estate informational tool rather than a community information display wh ich would be blank unless being utilized by a citizen. Beals replied that he reviewed the variances just for the real estate company and not for community events. The tool would still be considered a sign. Bear asked if a computer screen playing videos in a window would be allowed. Beals replied the screen would need to be set back from the window by three feet in order to not be considered a sign. Shields asked if the keyboard is digital and illuminated. Mr. Naab replied the keyboard is customizable and that items are accessible on demand with a 3 digit code. He went on to discuss the importance of an interactive tool and monitor noting the definition of a monitor does not exist in the Code. He stated the tool allows an opportunity to inform, communicate, and be changeable. Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney, clarified the Code requirement that a sign is considered to be within three feet of a window or door. Additionally, he stated a clear definition of the request and how the applicant will use the tool need to be determined. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 September 10, 2015 Long stated the Board cannot design programming for the sign just as it cannot redesign decks and homes. Bello stated the display is still a sign. Shuff argued the point of the Code requirement for 2 color signs is to avoid this type of issue. Bello asked Mr. Laner what he is proposing the monitor to display. Mr. Laner replied the technology allows a number of options; however, he would be willing to narrow the focus to it being solely a tool for the purpose of interacting with real estate properties. Regarding the five specific variance requests, Mr. Naab stated the monitor will have a slow dissolve of 3-4 seconds of one image to the next; the properties will be displayed for perhaps 10 seconds at a time and seamlessly change; the scroll does not exist left to right as is typical, and a monitor by nature has multiple colors; and he does not understand the sign face definition only being 50% of the sign. Mr. Laner asked if this discussion would be necessary if the monitor were set three feet back from the window. Mr. Naab stated the monitor would be viewable from that distance in order to get around the Code requirement. Shuff stated she would prefer to keep the discussion focused on the intent of the Code rather than getting around the Code. McCoy stated this technology appears to violate the Code in several ways though alternatives may exist to allow the system without a variance. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Long noted the Board takes the Sign Code very seriously and stated the programming aspect would be difficult to regulate. This request violates the Code. If this technology becomes more prevalent, then City staff could work on proposals to change to the Land Use Code. Shuff stated this is a great tool; however, it may need to be moved to the interior of the building stating the intent of the Code is to avoid electronic scrolling screens or interactive monitor screens by definition. This is not something our Board should approve. Long noted the applicant could resubmit the application in order to make certain each section of the Code provision is met. Bear commended the applicant presentation; however, she stated the burden of proof to justify the variance falls on the applicant and there is no justification for this plan being equal to or better than a complying plan and there is no justification that it does not diverge from the Land Use Code standards in a nominal and inconsequential way. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny Appeal ZBA150038 for the following reasons: the applicant does not identify sufficient reason on which to base an approval of the request and the Land Use Code has at least three sections that deal with the animation of signs making it difficult to say the variance is not detrimental to the public good. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Shields, McCoy, Bello, Long and Bear. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals discussed the ending of Boardmembers' terms and noted some will be able to reapply. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 September 10, 2015 McCoy stated he will not be in attendance at the October meeting. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM. Michael Bello, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 8, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150039 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 6200 S. College Avenue Petitioner: Matt Everhart Owner: Vincent & Joy Barnhart Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7(A)(2) Variance Request: The variance request is for a rooftop sign to be installed. The Land Use Code prohibits the installation of new rooftop signs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to allow a rooftop sign. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code section contains many regulations for the size, location and display of signs. The regulations were put in place for many reasons, such as but not limited to safety; over use of signs; and to preserve aesthetic appeal of property viewed from the public right of way. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the rooftop sign, and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The sign does not project above the most vertical portion of the roof. • The same sign and location on a parapet wall would comply with the standards of the Land Use Code. Therefore, the sign promotes the general purpose of the standard and complies equally well as a proposal that meets the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL# ZBA150039 This zoning variance request is regarding the application for a sign at 6200 S. College Ave. The business is Fort Collins Flea Market and the property owners are Vincent and Joy Barnhart. An application for a sign permit was submitted and denied by the city. The explanation for the denial was that the building front is classified as a porch and not a mansard roof because it has support pillars. This classification changes the technical definition of what is considered the roof line and therefore does not allow for the sign to be mounted as shown. It was explained that if the facade did not have pillars, the sign would be allowed as it would then be defined as a mansard roof. In asking follow up questions, it was explained that if the facade were vertical the sign would also be allowed as the roof line would now technically be at the top of the facade. The design of the front of the building is unfortunate for the purposes of building signage. The building porch existed long before this sign code had any impact on the property and has now created a hardship for the property and its owners. This interpretation and application of the code creates a hardship that is unique to this property as it essentially disallows the business to have a store front sign without: 1) changing the fascia to be vertical in order to modify the technical definition of the roof line, 2) mounting the sign on poles in front of the entry which would create issues in meeting the amount of open space required for a pole cover and would also prohibit the property from having a future pole sign, 3) removing the porch to expose the building front. All three options add substantial cost and the end result is a sign that is mounted at the same height in essentially the exact same location. I would argue that the appearance of the sign is better, and serves the public good to a greater degree, being mounted in the logical location as depicted in the drawings as originally submitted. The divergence from the land use code is quite nominal and inconsequential. The building is taller than the sign and no part or the sign or lighting would extend above the top of the building. In additions, the sign and store front would have the same general appearance whether the building facade were built at an angle or if it had been constructed vertically. The goal is to produce a visible marker for the business that will allow customers to safely find the location without impeding traffic flow. This sign serves the public good, marginally delineates from the land use code, meets or exceeds the context of the neighborhood, and provides aesthetic appeal to the building and neighborhood. Sincerely, Matt Everhart Matt Everhart Concept Signs & Graphics PROOF APPROVAL:_________________________ DATE:______________ PLEASE VERIFY ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND SIGN BELOW. NOTE: DUE TO INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER MONITOR AND PRINTER VARIATIONS THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY VARY IN APPEARANCE. FOR A NOMINAL FEE, PRODUCTION PROOF COLORS CAN BE PRODUCED FOR APPROVAL. PAGE 1 of 5 Drawing # FCFM 7-20-15R1 C Copyright - Please note this artwork is original and is the property of Concept Signs & Graphics. Distribution of this artwork in any form is prohibited. A ACM Quantity:Panel 1 West Sign Elevation with LED Front Scale Lighting. 1 1/2”=1’ 4’-0” 3mm ACM panels with butt seam at center. Overlay with CAD cut two color premium vinyl film. Mount to 1” aluminum sq./t. frame with through face fasteners. Three kicker brackets manufactured using perforated galvanized 2” angle. Three white LED gooseneck light fixtures to mount to vertical brackets. 16’-0” 287.98" Avery SC900-733 Aquamarine CAD cut vinyl film. Oracal 950 050 Dark Blue CAD cut vinyl film. PROOF APPROVAL:_________________________ DATE:______________ PLEASE VERIFY ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND SIGN BELOW. NOTE: DUE TO INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER MONITOR AND PRINTER VARIATIONS THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY VARY IN APPEARANCE. FOR A NOMINAL FEE, PRODUCTION PROOF COLORS CAN BE PRODUCED FOR APPROVAL. PAGE 2 of 5 C Copyright - Please note this artwork is original and is the property of Concept Signs & Graphics. Distribution of this artwork in any form is prohibited. 108.0" 72.0" 14.7" Drawing # FCFM 7-20-15R1 A ACM Quantity:Panel 1 West Sign Elevation with LED Front Scale Lighting. 1 1/2”=1’ PROOF APPROVAL:_________________________ DATE:______________ PLEASE VERIFY ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND SIGN BELOW. NOTE: DUE TO INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER MONITOR AND PRINTER VARIATIONS THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY VARY IN APPEARANCE. FOR A NOMINAL FEE, PRODUCTION PROOF COLORS CAN BE PRODUCED FOR APPROVAL. PAGE 3 of 5 C Copyright - Please note this artwork is original and is the property of Concept Signs & Graphics. Distribution of this artwork in any form is prohibited. Drawing # FCFM 7-20-15R1 SIGN 60' PROOF APPROVAL:_________________________ DATE:______________ PLEASE VERIFY ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND SIGN BELOW. NOTE: DUE TO INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER MONITOR AND PRINTER VARIATIONS THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY VARY IN APPEARANCE. FOR A NOMINAL FEE, PRODUCTION PROOF COLORS CAN BE PRODUCED FOR APPROVAL. PAGE 4 of 5 C Copyright - Please note this artwork is original and is the property of Concept Signs & Graphics. Distribution of this artwork in any form is prohibited. Drawing # FCFM 7-20-15R1 63' N Scale 1/32”=1’ PROOF APPROVAL:_________________________ DATE:______________ PLEASE VERIFY ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND SIGN BELOW. NOTE: DUE TO INDIVIDUAL COMPUTER MONITOR AND PRINTER VARIATIONS THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY VARY IN APPEARANCE. FOR A NOMINAL FEE, PRODUCTION PROOF COLORS CAN BE PRODUCED FOR APPROVAL. PAGE 5 of 5 C Copyright - Please note this artwork is original and is the property of Concept Signs & Graphics. Distribution of this artwork in any form is prohibited. Drawing # FCFM 7-20-15R1 12' 13'6” Conceptual depiction of sign on building if the building did not have a porch. Depiction shows the sign would be below the roof line and would be permitted. Conceptual depiction of sign on building if the building had a porch with a vertical fascia. Depiction shows the sign would be below the roof line and would be permitted. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 8, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150040 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 209 3rd Street Petitioner/Owner: Charles and Michelle Klamm Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b), 3.8.19(A)(6), 3.8.19(A)(7) Variance Request: The variance request is to allow a new house to be built 8 ft. 6 in. into the required 20 ft. front-yard setback, the eaves to extend an additional 6 in., and the stoop covering an additional 3 ft. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance requests to allow a new single family dwelling to be built 8 ft. 6 in. into the required 20 ft. front-yard setback, allow the eaves to extend an additional 6 in., and the stoop to cover an additional 3 ft. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the Buckingham Place subdivision plat. The original structure on the property was built in the early 1900’s. It is not certain when all the changes occurred to the original structure or when the accessory structures were built. Earlier this year, the Chief Building Official condemned the 480 square foot house. As a result, the structure was demolished. The applicant is seeking to build a new single family dwelling; however, two accessory buildings remain and provide challenges in placing the desired size of building on the property in compliance with the front-yard setback. The structures on the lots to either side (north and south) of the property are meeting the front-yard setback. Additionally, structures within the abutting blocks do encroach into the front-yard setback. This neighborhood’s public sidewalk system is attached to the street. Meaning, there is not parkway landscaping in between the sidewalk and the street. As a result of this condition, the property line does not align with the back of sidewalk and is further back. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of a new single family dwelling to be built 8 ft. and 6 in. into the require 20 ft. front-yard setback, and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • A distance of 20 ft. will still be maintained from the existing public sidewalk to the structure. • The eave overhangs are only an additional 6 in. • The stoop covering is only the width of the building entry and not the entire length of the building. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 2 Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # ZBA150040. Zoning Board of Appeals: Charles & Michelle Klamm 209 3"' Street Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Hello, we are asking for a variance of the 20 foot setback requirement in the land use code, for the property located at 209 3rd St. in Buckingham Place. We hope you may grant this variance finding by reason that "the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in context of the neighborhood". The variance as asked for promotes the current standard of setback for the property, as the request is only for 8' 6" into the setback or 11' 6" from property line and 20 feet from the back of the existing sidewalk. The previous historical house that was on this property for 115 years had a setback of 6'4"; or 14' 1 O" from the back of the sidewalk. That building, along with 29+ others within Buckingham Place, all have various setbacks significantly less than their 20 feet distance from sidewalks. This old neighborhood sits pretty close to the road, which is quite nice in our opinion. We would like to have a comfortable house to grow old in, one where we can talk to or wave at neighbors or passers-by from our front stoop like many other houses in this area. As with many of the lots in this neighborhood, our lot is long, narrow and backs into an alley. This means that the front of the property (East side) is the only real viable spot to be able to have a front stoop to enjoy, and create privacy in the backyard simultaneously. We have two existing buildings, a summer kitchen, and a garage that have the old charm of this historic neighborhood. Both have been restored and would be a significant loss to destroy, another reason for our asking for a variance. Our hope is that wi~ the information provided, you will find our request a nominal one that is in keeping with this beautiful neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Charles and Michelle Klamm. In keeping with the feel of the neighborhood, but also having a modem flare, these are some of the houses that inspired our design. Metal roofing, split level, porches, peaks, bay windows and sky lights.