Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2016 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingHeidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson 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 FEBRUARY 11, 2016 8:30 AM CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ELECTION OF OFFICERS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE APPEAL ZBA160002 Address: Petitioner/Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description 1112 Woodford Avenue Debbie & Curtis Claussen N-C-L 3.8.11(C)(1) and 3.8.11(C)(2) The variance would allow a 6 feet tall fence to be built in the front yard along the side property line. The maximum allowed height in the front yard is 4 feet. OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 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 DECEMBER 10, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Boardmember Long was absent. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS. MEETING • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA150048 - Denied Address: 1415 Parkwood Drive Petitioner/Owner: Dan Osborn Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(a) Project Description The variance would allow a 20 square foot sign to be placed in the front yard of a single family residential property. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the request and the illustrated location of the proposed sign, facing Parkwood Drive. Beals stated the Code allows a 2 square foot sign in this case and stated staff is not supporting this variance request due to the proposed 20 square foot size. Applicant Presentation: Dan Osborn, 1415 Parkwood Drive, stated this sign was the original neighborhood sign which was located at the entrance to the neighborhood for 20 years. He stated he does not consider this as a sign, but more of a landscape feature which therefore would not require a variance. Bello asked if Mr. Osborn is aware of opposition from two neighbors. Mr. Osborn replied he was not aware of that, but stated he has talked to numerous neighbors who are in favor of the proposal. Bear asked if Mr. Osborn's goal is related to nostalgia or if there are other reasons he would like to display the sign. Mr. Osborn replied most of his neighbors prefer the historic signs over the new granite signs for the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 December 10, 2015 Bear asked if the ideal situation would be to have the restored signs replace the new signs. Mr. Osborn replied that would be an option; however, the HOA will not meet on the issue until March. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the Board's discussion should be solely about the size of the sign and should not be based on what the sign says. Additionally, he encouraged the Board to look at the definition of a sign in order to determine whether or not this falls under that definition. ("Secretary's Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting in order to make and distribute copies of the Code definition of a sign.) Mr. Osborn noted he does have the approval of the HOA architectural review committee. Bear stated if this item were assessed to be a work of art, it would not be considered a sign. Additionally, it would not be a sign if it were not visible from the public view. She stated the item could loosely be defined as a work of art; however, it seems to more fit the definition of a sign if placed within public view. Stockover stated this is clearly a sign Shuff agreed with Stockover noting the item was built as a sign and stated it could create some confusion being located within the neighborhood. She stated she could not support the variance request. Bello agreed and noted two letters in opposition have been submitted. Mr. Osborn asked if a variance would be required if the sign were placed on HOA green space. Beals replied a neighborhood is allowed an identification sign which is required to be at the entrance of the neighborhood. Stockover asked if a sign could be placed at every entrance to a neighborhood. Beals replied the Code limits the number of signs at an entrance and they are already in place at the neighborhood entrances. Bello made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to deny Appeal No. ZBA150048, as the applicant as not satisfied the criteria necessary to justify hardship. The request is a 1000% increase over the allowed two square feet and therefore not a nominal and inconsequential deviation. The request does not meet the standard equally well or better than a proposal that meets the standard, and the request is not based on a hardship unique to the lot. Additionally, the applicant has not shown the proposal as submitted would 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. Vote: Yeas: Bear, McCoy, Stockover, Bello, Shields and Shuff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL ZBA150049 —Approved with conditions Address: 420 & 424 East Plum Street Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Owner: John & Jen Houska Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 December 10, 2015 Project Description: The variance request involves two properties, 420 E. Plum Street and 424 E. Plum Street. The variance would allow two existing garages, built within 3 feet of the shared property line, to be modified creating one structure that straddles the shared property line. The required setback from the property line on both sides is 5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the variance request and noted the properties, one of which is a duplex and one of which is a single-family home, are located at East Plum and Whedbee and next to a place of worship. Beals described the site plan and proposal to make one larger structure from the two existing garages. He stated staff is recommending approval of the variance with two conditions: 1) that the garage space at 424 remains for the use of the residents of the duplex and 2) that the size is reduced to 600 square feet, noting staff does not find the request to be detrimental to the public good, would not increase driveway space, and would not change the existing conditions on the property. McCoy asked if the existing garages are to remain. Beals replied in the affirmative but stated some walls may be redesigned. Bello asked how it can be guaranteed that the garage space would remain for the duplex property. Beals replied that would be on a complaint basis. Bello asked if the placement of a firewall between the two units would satisfy the Code. Beals replied that would be reviewed under the building permit process. Shuff asked if each of the wall setbacks would need to be address in an approval. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bear asked if the properties' being owned by one owner changes anything in terms of the Board's consideration. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied in the negative stating the Code provisions would not be affected except in regard to impact on property owners. Applicant Presentation: Dennis Sovick, 750 Havel Avenue, stated he is the applicant and project designer. Stockover asked if the masonry wall goes all the way to the back of the existing garage. Mr. Sovick replied since the garages are almost touching, he has proposed the placement of a firewall between the two expanded structures. Stockover asked if a wall would be connecting the two structures in the back. Mr. Sovick replied the area would be a closed storage area. Stockover asked if the additional 63 square feet was calculated. Mr. Sovick replied he was unsure. Bello noted staff has recommended reducing the size to 600 square feet. Mr. Sovick replied that would not be an issue. Bello asked if the shed on the 420 property is part of the 600 square feet. Beals replied in the negative. Mr. Sovick replied it is like a chicken coop. Stockover asked if the intent of the garage space is to make additional living area. Mr. Sovick replied, it will be a shop space with no water or sewer lines. Beals noted habitable space requires water and sewer and staff has been assured this is not habitable space. Audience Participation: John Houska, property owner, stated this proposal would increase shop space and improve the backyard and patio. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 December 10, 2015 Stockover asked if the 28 foot depth is critical. Mr. Houska replied the intent was to have shop space around a parked car and stated he is fine with the 600 square foot size. Board Discussion: Shuff asked about infilling the entire area between the structures and the situation created at the property line by doing so. She expressed concern regarding creating a large area of building that is not consistent with the Land Use Code. Stockover stated shading would likely not be a great concern and noted 80% or so of the roof line that is being added is up against the blank, non -usable wall which is unique to this property. Shuff expressed concern about possibly setting a precedent with over doubling non -compliant space. McCoy disagreed with Shuff. Shuff stated infilling the area between the garage would be a non -issue; however, she expressed concern about the zero lot line. McCoy stated the new addition does not change the existing condition against the rear and side setbacks. Bello asked if this is different than a townhouse in terms of straddling the property line. Shuff replied the two cannot be compared. Bear asked about restrictions on building in the rear half of the property. Beals replied there is a desire to preserve yard space in these zones as well as a desire to limit the number of structures and their impact on neighboring properties; therefore, the Code limits the size of accessory structures to 600 square feet and the rear lot requirements help with lessening impacts. Bear expressed concern regarding the appearance of an almost 1200 square foot structure in the backyard. She stated that does not seem to be consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. Shuff agreed with Bear's concerns but expressed support for the design. She asked how this meets the Land Use Code requirements for eave height. Beals replied staff did not find that Code section applicable. Bello noted the same mass would exist if the buildings were separated by ten feet and a variance would not be required; therefore, the question is really about bringing the structures together or separating them. Stockover noted the roof heights would not be an issue in that case. Stockover stated he would support this as every situation stands on its own. He cited the fact the building would be against an existing blank wall. McCoy agreed with Stockover noting a shared driveway already exists and the condition of the property would not change; therefore it is inconsequential. Shields agreed stating this would be an improvement over the existing condition. Shuff stated she would not support the request as it is a significant deviation. Stockover agreed with Shuffs thoughts noting nothing is truly inconsequential; however, the impact of separating the structures into two 600 square feet garages would result in the visual impact being virtually the same with more concrete on the ground. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 December 10, 2015 Bello made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal No. ZBA150049 for the following reasons: Under Section 2.10.2(H), the variance request to allow two existing garages to be modified to create one structure or two attached structures, with the conditions that the garage space on 424 East Plum is for the use of the residents of the duplex and the portion of the structure on both properties at 420 & 424 East Plum be reduced to a finished 600 square feet on each/both lots. The variance also addresses the fact that the rear setback is 8 inches off the 15 foot requirement. Both the existing and the new garage on 424 East Plum is granted a variance of the west wall to be on the property line and for 420 East Plum we are granting the east wall of the existing garage and proposed garages to be on the property line rather than the 5 foot setback. Additionally, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public good, the proposed structure does not exceed the allowable square footage for each lot, the proposal will reduce the amount of driveway than a plan that would require separate structures, there is an existing shared driveway, the existing structures currently do not meet the side yard setback, and there is a church at the back of this property line that these units are up against and are not affecting any neighbor in a detrimental way. Therefore in the context of the neighborhood, the variance will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Stockover, Bello, and Shields. Nays: Bear and Shuff. THE MOTION CARRIED. Bear stated this variance will not continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code. • OTHER BUSINESS Stockover asked if the sign at Mulberry and College is multi -colored. Beals replied he has only seen two colors but stated staff will look at the sign. Beals stated there are currently no variance applications for January and stated this is Chair Bello's last meeting. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:53 A.M. Heidi Shuff, Vice -Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner -Zoning Agenda Item 1 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL ZBA #160002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: Petitioner/Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: 1112 Woodford Avenue Curtis and Debbie Claussen N-C-L 3.8.11(C)(1) and 3.8.11(C)(2) Variance Request: The variance would allow a 6 feet tall fence to be built in the front -yard along the side property line. The maximum allowed height in the front yard is 4 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request with a condition. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: Fences in a residential property are prohibited to be taller than 4 feet in the front -yard. The primary structure built on the sited property sits further back than the primary structure on the west abutting property. This results in a larger front yard and decreased area where a fence higher than 4 feet can be placed. The property abutting to the west can place a 6 feet high fence along the same property line extending further south along a portion of 1112 Woodford Ave front -yard. 2. Applicant's statement of justification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findi Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approving the variance requests with the condition that it only extends to the most south portion of the primary building on the west abutting lot and finds. • With the condition, the request is not detrimental to the public good. • With the condition, the west abutting property can place a fence at 6 feet in height along the same property line without a variance. 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 with a condition of APPEAL # ZBA160002. Item # 1 - Page 1 January 13, 2016 Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are seeking a fence variance for our single family home located at 1112 Woodford Avenue in Fort Collins. Current zoning rules say that the fence be no more than 4 feet high between the front building and front property line. We respectfully request to install a 6 foot fence on the east and west sides of our property. Since we purchased the home 6/6/2014 the resident at 1114 Woodford directly next door, Patricia Falk Feeley has harassed and threatened both our tenants and us. We have received several letters mailed to our home address threatening and demanding that we make changes to our property. She continues to tamper with our property. We have had Patricia throw her dead tree limbs in our driveway claiming our trees killed her trees (please see photos). We have considered placing a restraining order on Patricia Falk Feeley. However, once we spoke with the Fort Collins Police we decided that we are thoughtful and considerate as a neighbor who is interested in "keeping the peace". By installing a higher fence that would keep our property private as it should be. It will provide our tenants with a hassle free environment and hopefully stop the constant threatening letters to our home. We would like to point out that we have taken time to discuss our fence variance request with several neighbors. They are both very supportive of our request. We hope you agree that our request would produce an aesthetically proper addition if not an enhancement to our neighborhood. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at 970-232-6978. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration to our request. Respectfully yours, 1C"u64Ab T , r • ti'• 0 v W=3=mi mrim No 1 ' 1 +tm 1 •� -i ' 7 ,� }yt4 •� 1.+ r t 4 1 FPIE ti — , I ml Owl MIN• 9M6 , - tiME El 1 BE MEN Sim 1 • rr •ti .1 • ir r • ' I r- fmm Lon ' r • ME I i _ . 1 y �. MEN MEN Mommm MEN SIN 91 mmomommmommmORPIm mom ME MEN I F B ME . MEN r •n � 1 • ti' No No •�■ . , MINE, OW�, . ti. 1 — • , r ME ON ME ME La ,m, 1 , mom �i No Text Patricia Falk Feeley 1114 Woodford Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 21 July 2014 Telephone: 970 493 0484 Debbie and Curtis Claussen 139 North McKlnleyAvenue 1112 Woodford Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Debbie and Curtis, About 1112 Woodford Avenue: I much admire your diligence in getting work done —cleanup, garden work, new roof, and the like, and I hope it all works out well for you and for Kevin, But I noticed over the weekend, while I was walking Sasha, that you have piled lumber along your block wall and leaned it against my fence. You have a shed. You have a garage/workshop, and storage space on its west side; that comprises some 113 square feet of property that was transferred to 1112 in a settlement. Please store this stuff somewhere where it is not leaning against my fence. The fence is mine. You are not entitled to lean stuff against it, or to fasten anything to it, which will hold water or snow against it and shorten its life. If I tell you the history of the property matter, perhaps you will understand. Ms. Meeker, several months after she moved here in 2008, made a preposterous claim to property between the west side of her residence and my side door. She planted over her own access to her garage in an effort to sustain that claim, and bushes along the driveway in anticipation that doing so would gain her several feet. Finally, she put up a No Trespassing sign on a recently installed dog fence and gate, restricting my access to its east side. I contacted neighborhood services, and we attended mediation. We reached a signed settlement --a contract --to have the line surveyed at shared cost, and to abide by that survey line. She did not designate an observer, or pay her share of the cost of the survey. Indeed, the evening that it was completed, and staked from front to back, she returned to find the stakes standing from back to front, with the line designated by a stringline. Enraged, she threatened me, I called 911, and she was cited by a Fort Collins officer for misdemeanor menacing —charges that were later dropped. I retained counsel and filed for breach of contract. This was June of 2009. In judicially mandated mediation, in 2010, she again signed a settlement accepting the current property division, and again omitted to abide by it. Finally, after a strongly worded court order in December of 2010, she did comply. As soon as was practicable, I had the new driveway and bollard and fencing installed, and new roofing done in the summer of 2011. The fencing is most precisely placed, and represents the property line exactly. About the bollard: I had it installed because Ms. Meeker was given to trying to run down temporary fencing to mark the surveyed property line from the time of the 2009 survey to the imposition of the last court order. When it was time to install the new fencing, I didn't want to take the risk of her ramming it. She never tried to run down the permanent fencing, not with 6 inches of steel and concrete intervening. I gave up 113 square feet, on advice of counsel, to avert the much greater expenditures that trial would have cost, beyond the $35,000 I'd already spent to keep property I'd already purchased and the considerable costs I'd invested in renovation. Which is why I'm saying --and I mean it —that you are entitled to every inch of that 113 square feet, but not one inch more. I don't want to be a bad neighbor. I have had a bad neighbor, six years of one, and it was no fun at all. I try to be a good one, respectful of and helpful to my neighbors. I bought here when the neighborhood was partly rundown, but ripe for renovation. The town's cracking down on illegal two -families helped revive a faltering neighborhood; ten years ago it was packed with unpermitted and illegal two-family housing, most of it since sold by landlords who didn't want to pay the costs of conforming with the regulations. Young, energetic families got bargains, renovated, and the result has been a much improved neighborhood, increasingly a family neighborhood, with fewer undergrads and a great deal more stability. I'm sorry Ms. Meeker forced me to law, and tried to claim ownership of the strip of property to which she had a customary (i.e. unrecorded) easement over my land to her garage. She tried to assert her claim to more land by planting it, and instead destroyed any claim at all to use. No grantee of an easement is can claim ownership of the eased property by asserting by adverse possession, which was the essence of Ms. Meeker's claim. Her planting (and posting of a No Trespassing sign!) across the eased area was not only inappropriate, but also voided the purpose for which the easement had been granted and endured, and thus voided the easement itself. She claimed that a recently installed dog fence and gate had been there for the requisite period, 18 years; there was photographic evidence that it had not been there in 2004, when I applied for a building permit. She also claimed that the building of 1112 preceded the building of 1114, but that, too, was incorrect; 1112 was built in 1925, 1114 in 1924. Why the builder of 1112 built the house and garage so close to the property line is inexplicable, although the popular vehicle of the time was the Model T Ford —smallish and narrow. I suppose a Smart Car or Mini could still get into that garage. I remember this vividly, because I kept detailed records from the moment she posted the No Trespassing sign, shortly after I'd declined her request that I plant a maple tree to shade her west side. Her behavior on the evening of the survey seemed consonant with her public records in Oregon (two counts of identity theft, six of forgery, six of tampering with drug records, three years of probation and mandatory drug counseling and testing, and resulting loss of license as an occupational therapist, which impaired her ability to find and hold work here. Oregon doesn't jail nonviolent drug offenders. You are welcome to obtain the survey records of both the old and the new property lines from Rob Persichitte, Intermill Land Surveyors, Loveland, 970 665 0516. He was recommended by Mike Davis, the award -winning builder who lives across Woodford, on the corner of Wayne. If Persichitte needs a release, have him call me, 970 493 0484. During the last of the litigation, Ms. Meeker later attempted to suborn him to alter the second survey, trying to tell him that the northwest corner of her house was not the northwest corner of her house. It would have been comic if it had not been so costly and protracted. If you are going to pull together a regulation parking area, I can recommend Iverson Concrete. (970) 224 5966. Mr. Iverson did mine, and also Janet Emmanuel's, at 911 Woodford. It needs to be "on an improved area having a surface of asphalt, concrete, rock, gravel or other similar inorganic material." What you have now, in front, is mostly bare earth, which the regulations prohibit, and weeds, with remains from an old macadam driveway, and a deep rut on either side. Twelve feet is a good width, and your removal of the shrubs (also planted as part of the effort to claim property), has made room enough for an adequate area. It might be possible to revise the grade so it drains toward the street; right now snowmelt ponds at the north end, and becomes impossible to shovel in winter. If you're doing replacement windows, you can apply to the city to subsidize Energy Star, whether you purchase them new, or have Phoenix Window Restoration, a courteous and reliable contractor and a bargain compared to new custom architectural windows and their installation. You can find them at http://www.12hoenixwindow.net/ If you decide on Phoenix, book them for a time when warm weather is expected; three openings a day come out --not fun when it's really cold, as I know because mine were done the week after Thanksgiving, when I had to keep the fireplace going, fed the workmen stout meals, and made gallons of soup and cocoa. The work dropped gas consumption here precipitously. At the time, a permit was not required, but it may be now. Yours most sincerely, and in no small amount of sympathy, but in an effort to make i a that I have pretty much had enough. ra eley Dear Mr. and Mrs. Clausen, I left the attached letter for Kevin and DJ on the date it was written Nothing has been done, further signs of fire blight showed up three days ago on the Kingston Black, and I had it taken down to ground level the day before yesterday, and put the tree behind the cars in your driveway. Either DJ or Kevin or both seems to have moved it to the back of my property, which I do my utmost to keep clear of weeds and debris, while it is Kevin's and DJ's custom to pile garden debris behind the fence for considerable periods of time. I think that, at the very least, it is their responsibility to dispose of it. When I tried to mention it to Kevin yesterday, he stated --rather smugly, I thought —that he and DJ don't own the property. But you do, and I'm asking you take it down, something that will take either a good climber or access for a bucket truck. The entire tree should be disposed of, not shredded for mulch. I realize that the new plantings in front have diminished access for a large truck, which —last time the trees were worked on —had to come in across my driveway though the area now partially obstructed by the new raised beds in front. You have my permission to do that by arrangement for a specific date, but I will not move either my bollard or my fencing to allow it. Now I note that another apple in the neighborhood, at 1122, is showing signs of the same disease. This disease, which is backterial, and readily spread by insects and probably by wind, affects not only apple trees, but also pear trees, mountain ash, pyracantha, hawthorn, serviceberry, raspberries, blackberries, and roses. It can blight entire orchards, which this area once was, with many old trees remaining, and plenty of households with raspberries and roses, it will likely spread further if you don't act. .The reasonable and considerate thing to do is to arrange for the large crabapple to be taken down and disposed of, before the entire neighborhood has a problem; contagion is exacerbated by wet and warm conditions such as those of the spring weather we had earlier in the year, but now that cool, dry weather is upon us, it would be a good time to do it. I have to say that, welcome neighbors though Kevin and DJ were, they have slid several notches down in my view. And so have you; I first spoke to DJ last year about the problem, and I had, of course, kept a close watch on my own trees for quite a while. Tre Gettig, who does my trees, and many throughout the neighborhood, handled the pruning that Ms. Meeker had done before the closing, and strongly recommended then that the crabapples both come down, but she would not have it done. If you want to learn about this contagious bacterial disease, you can Google it and learn something about it. That will clarify, I think, that ignoring it isn't going to help. If you'd like to discuss the matter, my telephone is 970 493 0484. Y�urss s jcer Flat Feeley Dear Kevin and DJ, About 9 years ago, I planted the small Kingston Black apple tree in front of my house near the driveway. I had worried about it, because I knew that the crabapple at 1112 was infected with fireblight, a contagious disease that can afflict apples, roses, and a variety of berry crops such as raspberries and blackberries. And I know I'd mentioned to you that your crabapple was afflicted with it, but it was clear you didn't want to have it taken down, didn't want to spend the money, and rather liked the sculptural quality of its dead branches. It is not the only such afflicted tree in the neighborhood, of course. The presence of fireblight in the neighborhood may date back to the time when the whole area between Oak and Magnolia, Shields and Washington, was an orchard, then well cared for, before it was subdivided almost 100 years ago.. The apple, perhaps also a Northern Spy, behind Duncan and Joanna's house was treated for fireblight before they moved there, but not taken down, and has seemed to recover well. Another house on Akin has a tree that is afflicted, but that has been neither treated nor taken down, and hasn't been pruned in I don't know how long —not since I moved here eleven years ago, anyway —nor is it regularly picked and cleared of fallen apples and fallen leaves. None of my roses, my raspberries, nor my other apples —the Brown Snout on the west side of my front yard, the Roxbury Russet and the Northern Spy in back —have signs of it as yet. Since this had been an orchard on a largish scale years ago, I thought it appropriate to return some of it to an orchard with semi - dwarf instead of full-sized trees, and had a good deal of work done to save the Northern Spy, which probably is more than 100 years old, and is a very large tree. But I noticed late last week that one entire branch of the Kingston Black had gone yellow and dessicated, which is what precedes that blackened appearance that has plagued the crabapple on your property. That blackened appearance gives the disease its popular name, since the death of the branch quickly leads to the blackening of leaves and twigs, as though they'd been scorched by a blow torch. I took that branch off today, with a sharp saw, cleaned before and after with alcohol, and the wound itself painted with alcohol. I will keep a close eye on it, and if fireblight manifests again I will take it down. Because I have other susceptible plants on my property, and have invested a good deal of work and no small amount of money in them, I am asking that you have the afflicted tree taken down before season is out; and make sure that it is hauled away and, preferably, burned, before the fireblight can spread even further. I'm sorry to have to bring this up, but I'd rather get the issue in the open and up for discussion than try to swallow my resentment of having brought it up and had the matter ignored or benefit of the doubt — simply not understood, with the resulting likely loss of a tree and the prospect of more losses. B st, 2 Pat Feeley 1 September 2015 Patricia Feeley 1114 Woodford Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 8 February 2016 Noah Beals Senior City Planner -Zoning Zoning Board of Appeals City Hall 300 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Mr. Beals, I have your notice of appeal by Debbie and Curtis Claussen to allow the property at 1112 Woodford Avenue to have a six foot tall fence built along the side property line or lines. The code is for a four foot fence; five would be something of a stretch, but a request for that would be understandable, since their son and his partner have three largish dogs: two Great Danes and a Weimaraner who need to be protected by a fence they are unable to jump. As you can see, I live at 1114, next door. Here is photo taken from the gate at my house, showing two of their vehicles and my own van, several days after the recent storm. My front fence, visible here, is four feet. Six feet, however, is more than the neighborhood could deal with, I think, first because no other such fence has been permitted, but also because, at least on our common property line, such a fence would make it exceedingly difficult for anyone parked in my driveway adequate to see traffic headed west on Woodford, or for anyone on their driveway to see traffic headed either way on Woodford. The two gentlemen living there, Kevin Clausen, and his partner, DJ, have, between them, five motor vehicles. Space is so tight right now that during this latest heavy snowfall, they had to shovel onto my driveway to access their vehicles parked in the driveway, and it was several days before I could get that area cleared to give myself a safe, cleared walking area on my own driveway. Things are not made easier by the fact that prior owners of the property have left what driveway is there with a badly deteriorated surface that has crumbled, over the years, from macadam to bare earth. The driveway also seems to be more narrow than the standard 12 feet.It would take alteration of some of their front garden area to give them a standard width, and to get the desired parking area paved so that it can be cleared of snow. It is not clear from your letter whether the proposal is for a six foot fence on one side or on both sides. Nothing is mentioned about the front, but six feet across the front would be fortress like and inappropriate. Here is a picture that shows the Classen house from Woodford Avenue, with the chain link fence between their residence and the Bassett residence next door. No Text � y d pp � All !R lr; ! ^� 41 Rol.I i a a_r ' j